[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE MEMBERS' DAY HEARING
=======================================================================
(116-13)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 1, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
43-103 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
SAM GRAVES, Missouri ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
DON YOUNG, Alaska District of Columbia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida RICK LARSEN, Washington
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
ROB WOODALL, Georgia JOHN GARAMENDI, California
JOHN KATKO, New York HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
BRIAN BABIN, Texas Georgia
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina DINA TITUS, Nevada
MIKE BOST, Illinois SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas JARED HUFFMAN, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California JULIA BROWNLEY, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida MARK DeSAULNIER, California
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California,
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Vice Chair
Puerto Rico ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
ROSS SPANO, Florida TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota GREG STANTON, Arizona
CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
GREG PENCE, Indiana LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
HARLEY ROUDA, California
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ ix
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure:
Oral statement............................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 1
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure:
Oral statement............................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Daniel Lipinski, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, prepared statement................................ 196
MEMBER TESTIMONY
Hon. Max Rose, a Representative in Congress from the State of New
York:
Oral statement............................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Gwen Moore, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Wisconsin:
Oral statement............................................... 5
Submissions for the record \\
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hon. Lori Trahan, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
Oral statement............................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Hon. Cheri Bustos, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois:
Oral statement............................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Submission for the record \\......................... 148
Hon. Mikie Sherrill, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey:
Oral statement............................................... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Hon. Josh Harder, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California:
Oral statement............................................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
Oral statement............................................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Hon. Ilhan Omar, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Minnesota:
Oral statement............................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Hon. Mike Quigley, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois:
Oral statement............................................... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 35
----------
\\ Please see the ``Submissions for the Record'' section for a
description(s) of item(s) submitted for the record.
Hon. Roger W. Marshall, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Kansas:
Oral statement............................................... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Hon. Lauren Underwood, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois:
Oral statement............................................... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Hon. Steny H. Hoyer, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Maryland:
Oral statement............................................... 44
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Hon. James R. Langevin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Rhode Island:
Oral statement............................................... 47
Submission for the record \\......................... 49
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Hon. James A. Himes, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Connecticut:
Oral statement............................................... 52
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Hon. Earl Blumenauer, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Oregon:
Oral statement............................................... 55
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Hon. Dan Newhouse, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington:
Oral statement............................................... 58
Prepared statement........................................... 59
Hon. Robert J. Wittman, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Virginia:
Oral statement............................................... 61
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Hon. Donna E. Shalala, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida:
Oral statement............................................... 65
Prepared statement........................................... 67
Hon. Scott H. Peters, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California:
Oral statement............................................... 69
Prepared statement........................................... 71
Hon. Danny K. Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois:
Oral statement............................................... 72
Prepared statement........................................... 73
Hon. Josh Gottheimer, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey:
Oral statement............................................... 74
Prepared statement........................................... 76
Hon. Ro Khanna, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California:
Oral statement............................................... 77
Prepared statement........................................... 78
Hon. Debra A. Haaland, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Mexico:
Oral statement............................................... 80
Prepared statement........................................... 81
Submissions for the record \\
Hon. Ben Cline, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Virginia:
Oral statement............................................... 90
Prepared statement........................................... 91
----------
\\ Please see the ``Submissions for the Record'' section for a
description(s) of item(s) submitted for the record.
Hon. Peter Welch, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Vermont:
Oral statement............................................... 92
Prepared statement........................................... 93
Submission for the record \\......................... 95
Hon. Pramila Jayapal, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Washington:
Oral statement............................................... 97
Prepared statement........................................... 99
Hon. Elaine G. Luria, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Virginia:
Oral statement............................................... 101
Prepared statement........................................... 102
Hon. William R. Keating, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
Oral statement............................................... 103
Prepared statement........................................... 105
Hon. Grace Meng, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York:
Oral statement............................................... 106
Prepared statement........................................... 107
Hon. Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Iowa, oral statement........................................... 108
Hon. Tom O'Halleran, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arizona:
Oral statement............................................... 110
Prepared statement........................................... 112
Hon. Tony Cardenas, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California:
Oral statement............................................... 113
Prepared statement........................................... 115
Hon. Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California:
Oral statement............................................... 116
Prepared statement........................................... 117
Hon. Mary Gay Scanlon, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
Oral statement............................................... 119
Prepared statement........................................... 121
Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California:
Oral statement............................................... 122
Prepared statement........................................... 124
Hon. Nydia M. Velazquez, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York:
Oral statement............................................... 125
Prepared statement........................................... 126
Hon. Mark Takano, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California:
Oral statement............................................... 127
Prepared statement........................................... 128
Hon. Elissa Slotkin, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Michigan:
Oral statement............................................... 129
Prepared statement........................................... 130
Hon. Joe Neguse, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Colorado:
Oral statement............................................... 132
Prepared statement........................................... 133
Hon. Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Georgia:
Oral statement............................................... 134
Prepared statement........................................... 135
----------
\\ Please see the ``Submissions for the Record'' section for a
description(s) of item(s) submitted for the record.
Hon. Dean Phillips, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Minnesota:
Oral statement............................................... 136
Prepared statement........................................... 137
Hon. Maxine Waters, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California:
Oral statement............................................... 138
Prepared statement........................................... 140
Submission for the record \\......................... 227
Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California:
Oral statement............................................... 142
Prepared statement........................................... 144
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Hon. Jodey C. Arrington, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement............................. 147
Hon. Tim Burchett, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Tennessee, prepared statement.................................. 147
Principles To Include in an Infrastructure Proposal, Submitted
for the Record by Hon. Cheri Bustos, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Illinois............................ 148
Hon. Matt Cartwright, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, prepared statement............... 150
Hon. Ed Case, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Hawaii, prepared statement..................................... 152
Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida, prepared statement.................................... 153
Hon. David N. Cicilline, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Rhode Island, prepared statement...................... 155
Hon. Gilbert Ray Cisneros, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, prepared statement.................... 157
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Missouri, prepared statement................................ 158
Hon. Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Virginia, prepared statement................... 159
Hon. TJ Cox, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California, prepared statement................................. 160
Hon. Joe Cunningham, a Representative in Congress from the State
of South Carolina, prepared statement.......................... 161
Hon. Madeleine Dean, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, prepared statement............... 162
Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Connecticut, prepared statement............................. 163
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, prepared statement.............................. 164
Hon. Dwight Evans, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, prepared statement............... 165
Hon. Ruben Gallego, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arizona, prepared statement................................. 166
Hon. Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas, prepared statement................................... 167
Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona, prepared statement........................... 168
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Debra A. Haaland, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New Mexico:
Current Priority Infrastructure Projects in New Mexico's
First Congressional District............................... 82
Letter of April 26, 2019, from Michael R. Sandoval, Cabinet
Secretary, New Mexico Department of Transportation......... 83
Report entitled ``Tribal Infrastructure: Investing in Indian
Country for a Stronger America,'' by the National Congress
of American Indians........................................ 86
List of Indian Country Infrastructure Needs.................. 87
----------
\\ Please see the ``Submissions for the Record'' section for a
description(s) of item(s) submitted for the record.
Hon. Jahana Hayes, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Connecticut, prepared statement................................ 171
Hon. Kendra S. Horn, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Oklahoma, prepared statement................................ 172
Hon. Will Hurd, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, prepared statement...................................... 174
Hon. Daniel T. Kildee, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan, prepared statement.......................... 175
Hon. Derek Kilmer, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, prepared statement................................. 175
``Four Pillars for an Infrastructure Deal,'' by the New Democrat
Coalition 21st Century Infrastructure Taskforce, Submitted for
the Record by Hon. Derek Kilmer, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington................................... 176
Hon. Andy Kim, a Representative in Congress from the State of New
Jersey, prepared statement..................................... 177
Hon. Raja Krishnamoorthi, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, prepared statement.......................... 178
Letter of May 1, 2019, from Members of Congress Advocating for
Career and Technical Education, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. James R. Langevin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Rhode Island.......................................... 49
Hon. John B. Larson, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Connecticut, prepared statement............................. 180
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Larson:
Connecticut Department of Transportation Recommendations
on FAST Act Reauthorization............................ 181
Letter of April 29, 2019, from Kevin A. Dillon, A.A.E.,
Executive Director, Connecticut Airport Authority...... 192
Federal Priorities of the Capitol Region Council of
Governments (Connecticut).............................. 194
Hon. Andy Levin, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, prepared statement................................... 194
Hon. Daniel Lipinski, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, prepared statement................................ 196
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Alan S. Lowenthal, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California:
Letter of March 25, 2019, from the House of Representatives
Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition............... 196
Policy Proposal, ``Sustainable Energy and Environment
Coalition (SEEC) Sustainable Infrastructure Principles''... 199
Hon. Ben McAdams, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Utah, prepared statement....................................... 199
Hon. Betty McCollum, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Minnesota, prepared statement............................... 201
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Gwen Moore, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Wisconsin:
Letter of February 8, 2019, from Hon. Gwen Moore, et al...... 6
List of DBEs willing to testify.............................. 8
Hon. Joseph D. Morelle, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York, prepared statement.......................... 202
Hon. Bill Pascrell, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, prepared statement........................ 203
Hon. Ed Perlmutter, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado, prepared statement................................ 204
Hon. Bill Posey, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida, prepared statement.................................... 205
Hon. Tom Rice, a Representative in Congress from the State of
South Carolina, prepared statement............................. 208
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, prepared statement................................ 209
Hon. Bradley Scott Schneider, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Illinois, prepared statement...................... 210
Hon. David Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Georgia, prepared statement.................................... 211
The Jobs, On-the-Job `Earn While You Learn' Training, and
Apprenticeships for African-American Young Men Act, Submitted
for the Record by Hon. David Scott, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Georgia............................. 213
Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, a Representative in Congress from
the Commonwealth of Virginia, prepared statement............... 218
Hon. Jose E. Serrano, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York, prepared statement................................ 219
Hon. Adam Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, prepared statement................................. 220
Hon. Jefferson Van Drew, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, prepared statement........................ 221
Hon. Jackie Walorski, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Indiana, prepared statement................................. 223
Hon. Jennifer Wexton, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Virginia, prepared statement................... 225
Letter of April 30, 2019, from Hon. Maxine Waters, Chairwoman,
Committee on Financial Services, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Maxine Waters, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.................................................. 227
Letter of May 1, 2019, from Hon. Peter Welch, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Peter Welch, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Vermont........................................... 95
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
April 26, 2019
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: LMembers, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure
FROM: LStaff, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure
RE: LFull Committee Hearing on ``Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure Members' Day''
_______________________________________________________________________
PURPOSE
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I
Committee) will meet on Wednesday, May 1, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.
in 2167 Rayburn House Office Building to receive testimony
related to ``Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Members' Day.'' Pursuant to H. Res. 6 Sec. 103(j), the purpose
of this hearing is to provide Members of Congress an
opportunity to testify before the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure on the Member's policy priorities within the
Committee's jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
T&I COMMITTEE JURISDICTION
The T&I Committee has broad jurisdiction over all modes of
transportation and numerous types of infrastructure programs
and funding, which is overseen as delineated below by six
subcommittees.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION:
The Subcommittee on Aviation has jurisdiction over all
aspects of civil aviation, including safety, infrastructure,
labor, economic regulation, and international issues. Within
this scope of responsibilities, the Subcommittee has
jurisdiction over the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), a
modal administration within the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT). This jurisdiction covers all programs
within the FAA as well as aviation programs of the DOT with
respect to economic regulation of air carriers and passenger
airline service. In addition, the Subcommittee has jurisdiction
over commercial space transportation, the National Mediation
Board (NMB), and the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB).
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION:
The Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
has jurisdiction over the U.S. Coast Guard, including its
duties, organization, functions, and powers. Within the
Committee's broader maritime transportation jurisdiction, the
Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the regulation of commercial
vessels and merchant seamen; domestic laws and international
conventions related to the safe operation of vessels and safety
of life at sea; and the regulation of ocean shipping, domestic
cabotage requirements (Jones Act), and the merchant marine,
except as it relates to national defense.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT:
The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,
and Emergency Management is responsible for the authorization
and oversight of federal real estate programs, including
construction, repair, alteration, maintenance, and enhancement
of such real property; the authorization and oversight of
programs promoting economic development in communities
suffering economic distress; the authorization and oversight of
programs addressing the federal management of emergencies and
disasters; and a variety of measures affecting homeland
security, including the all-hazards nature of the federal
response to disasters and the Federal Protective Service.
The asset management activities of the Subcommittee's
jurisdiction include: improved grounds of the United States,
generally, and measures relating to the Public Buildings
Service (PBS) of the General Services Administration (GSA)--the
civilian landlord of the federal government--including the
planning, site and design, construction, acquisition, and
renovation of public buildings, courthouses, and border
facilities, and the leasing of space for federal employees; the
buildings, physical plant, and infrastructure of the Capitol
Complex and use of the Capitol Grounds; the facilities of the
White House complex; the facilities of the Smithsonian
Institution, including all new and proposed facilities;
facilities of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing
Arts; Union Station Redevelopment Corporation; Judiciary
Centers; measures relating to the location, use, accessibility,
energy conservation, security, health and safety, and transfer
or exchange of federal buildings; and the naming of federal
buildings and courthouses.
The economic development activities of the Subcommittee
include jurisdiction over the Economic Development
Administration (EDA) of the Department of Commerce, the
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), the Denali Commission,
the Delta Regional Authority (DRA), the Northern Great Plains
Regional Authority, the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission,
the Southwest Border Regional Commission, and the Northern
Border Regional Commission.
The Subcommittee's jurisdiction of federal management of
emergencies and natural disasters includes the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) oversight and activities
relating to disaster mitigation, preparedness, response, and
recovery, as well as programs relating to first responders.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT:
The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit is responsible for
the development of Federal surface transportation policy and
the authorization of programs for the construction and
improvement of highway and transit facilities, highway and
transit safety, commercial motor vehicle and driver safety, and
research and innovation programs. Related to these
responsibilities, the Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the
following modal administrations and offices within the U.S.
Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA); Federal Transit Administration (FTA); Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA); National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) (partial); Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology; National
Surface Transportation and Innovative Finance Bureau; and
Office of the Secretary of Transportation.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
The Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials exercises jurisdiction over the programs and
activities of two U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) modal
administrations, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA). The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee includes all
federal laws and programs regulating railroad transportation,
including railroad safety, rail infrastructure programs,
economic regulation, railroad labor laws, and the non-revenue
aspects of the federal railroad retirement and railroad
unemployment systems. The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee also
includes all federal laws and programs regulating the safety of
gas and liquid pipelines and the safety of transporting
material and freight that has been classified as hazardous,
regardless of the mode of transportation.
Agencies and other establishments outside the DOT whose
rail-related activities fall within the Subcommittee
jurisdiction include: Surface Transportation Board (STB);
Amtrak; Amtrak Inspector General; Northeast Corridor Commission
(NEC Commission); Railroad Retirement Board (RRB); Railroad
Retirement Board Inspector General (RRB IG); National Railroad
Retirement Investment Trust; and National Mediation Board
(NMB).
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT:
The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment consists generally of matters relating to water
resources development, conservation and management, water
pollution control and water infrastructure, and hazardous waste
cleanup.
Issues under the Subcommittee include: water resources
programs (projects and regulations)--Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps); Clean Water Act, water infrastructure and watershed
protection programs--Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
Clean Water Act, regulatory authorities--EPA and Corps;
Superfund and Brownfields revitalization--EPA; ocean dumping--
EPA and Corps; oil pollution--EPA and Coast Guard; Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA); Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation--U.S. Department of Transportation; National
Resources Conservation Service's Small Watershed Program--U.S.
Department of Agriculture; Deepwater ports--EPA, Coast Guard,
Corps; invasive/aquatic nuisance species/harmful algal blooms--
EPA, Coast Guard, Corps, and other agencies; coastal pollution
and coastal zone management--EPA and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); natural resource damages--
NOAA, Department of the Interior, and other agencies;
Groundwater protection--primarily EPA and Corps; water
resources policy--multiple agencies; toxic substances and
public health--Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR); and boundary water issues between the United States
and Mexico--the International Boundary Water Commission at the
U.S. Department of State.
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE MEMBERS' DAY HEARING
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 2019
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
(Chairman of the committee) presiding.
Mr. DeFazio. Welcome, good morning.
This is our first hearing in our renovated hearing room. I
hope everybody likes the color scheme. You can thank mostly
Kathy for that, if you don't like it.
And if you like it, you can thank me. So--no, actually, we
agreed on it and I like it very much.
So here we are. We want to hear from Members.
We hope in the not-too-distant future to write a long-term
surface transportation bill, take on the wastewater issues,
harbor maintenance, you know, deal with water itself, rail, all
our jurisdictions. And so we want to hear from our colleagues
on their ideas.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
The hearing will come to order. Let me officially welcome Members
of the Committee to our hearing room. Today is the first day the
Committee convenes in our renovated space--it feels good to hold the
gavel on home turf. I am especially pleased that we are able to share
our return to room 2167 with Members of the House who join us today to
present their transportation and infrastructure priorities.
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to join Leader Pelosi and other
Members of the House and Senate at a meeting with the President. I went
into that meeting hopeful that we could come together and chart a path
forward to secure, at last, the robust investment in transportation and
infrastructure this country desperately needs.
I made clear to the President that taking action to address our
infrastructure needs is not optional--letting our roads, bridges,
airports, transit systems, ports, and water systems crumble amounts to
a national crisis. Every day that we wait to act also means the price
tag to fix our infrastructure goes up.
We have let our infrastructure--and our infrastructure funding
streams--stagnate to the point where we now need to invest hundreds of
billions of dollars to make up for past neglect and plan for the
future. There is no way around this reality if we expect improvement.
We must now act to address this challenge, by coming together and
enacting legislation that will make a difference in every Congressional
district and to every Member's constituents. We must demonstrate to the
American people that their government is still capable of working
together and taking responsible action to complete critical projects,
create family wage jobs, bolster U.S. industries, save lives, preserve
affordable access to transportation and water infrastructure, protect
our natural resources, and make smart investments and mitigate and
adapt to climate change.
While I continue to press my colleagues on the Committee on Ways
and Means, House Leadership, the Senate, and the White House on a path
forward on funding, this Committee must do its legislative work.
That is why we have invited Members to speak today on
infrastructure priorities under the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, so that we are informed by what
matters most to our colleagues as we move forward with the Committee's
legislative agenda.
Thank you to all Members who have made time to come before the
Committee today. I look forward to your testimony.
Mr. DeFazio. At this point I turn to the ranking member for
anything he might want to say.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio. And
obviously, that is what the hearing is about--to hear from our
colleagues and hear what their ideas and their priorities are.
I think that this is a good idea. We have got a lot of
people, obviously, on the docket that do want to talk to us.
And I do have a prepared statement. If that is all right, I
will just submit it and we can move on.
It is going to be a long day.
[Mr. Graves of Missouri's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
The Committee's legislative priorities this Congress include an
infrastructure bill, a surface transportation reauthorization bill, a
Water Resources Development Act, a pipeline safety reauthorization, and
more.
We have some obvious challenges ahead. For example, we need a long-
term solution for the Highway Trust Fund. We all know that we can't
continue to rely on a gas tax that is becoming more and more
unreliable.
We also know that transportation technology continues to evolve. We
have to ensure that our infrastructure solutions keep pace and take
advantage of the benefits of technology to enhance safety, create
efficiencies, and reduce costs.
And we know that the federal processes for approving projects
continue to be too bureaucratic. That's why we should always look for
ways to streamline the infrastructure delivery process wherever
possible.
That said, our country has a diverse set of infrastructure needs.
One size does not fit all, and what works for one state or region may
not work for another.
As we move forward, an important step is to gather as much input as
possible from a variety of stakeholders. Today we will hear from our
Congressional colleagues about the projects and policies that are
important to their districts and states.
I look forward to hearing a wide variety of proposals that will
help us address infrastructure needs across the United States.
We have passed a lot of good, bipartisan legislation in recent
years, and I look forward to adding to those accomplishments.
The President has been outspoken about the need for Congress to
develop a bipartisan infrastructure package that can be signed into
law, so I hope this hearing today will help us reach that goal.
Thank you again Chairman DeFazio, and thank you to all the Members
testifying today.
Mr. DeFazio. Excellent. I ask unanimous consent that the
chair be authorized to declare recesses during today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
Members appearing before the committee today will have 5
minutes to give their oral testimony, and written statements
will be made part of the formal hearing record.
Given the number of Members appearing before the committee
today, and out of consideration for colleagues' time, I ask
unanimous consent that members of the committee be given 2
minutes to question each Member/witness, following their
statements.
Without objection, so ordered.
Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
included in the record. Since your written testimony is made
part of the record, the committee requests you limit your oral
testimony to 5 minutes.
And I think that is done with the script. So, with that, I
recognize our colleague first from New York. First come, first
served. OK.
TESTIMONY OF HON. MAX ROSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Rose. Thank you so much for hosting this hearing and
for giving me this opportunity to come before the committee to
highlight some of the major challenges facing my congressional
district on Staten Island and in South Brooklyn.
Despite being a part of New York City, you would never
think it, based on how the folks in my district get around.
Sixty-eight percent of Staten Islanders drive to and from work,
as opposed to 22 percent in Manhattan.
I have heard people blame Staten Island's car culture for
the city's congestion problem, but that just ignores the root
core of the issue, because for too many of my constituents,
public transportation just is not a reliable and credible
alternative. Until that changes, we need to stop punishing
hard-working people who are just trying to get around.
The reason we are stuck in this situation in my district is
that my district has been forgotten when it comes to Federal,
State, and local attention to our transportation needs. When it
comes time to invest in transportation projects, Staten Island
and South Brooklyn have been second thoughts throughout the
years. We have one railroad, one ferry, and an express bus
system to Manhattan, all of which are not working nearly as
well as the other systems throughout New York City.
The MTA system, which serves South Brooklyn, is currently
scheduled to receive signal upgrades in a decade. A decade. Try
telling that to people.
So I understand that many communities around New York City
and the country need improvements to their daily commutes, but
so do my constituents, and we cannot afford to wait another
decade.
As always, I did not just come here to complain. Here are
some real proposals.
I encourage the committee to sit down and craft, obviously,
a long-term infrastructure bill. And I know that there is not a
person in this room that is not in favor of that. I want it,
the American people want it, I know all of you do, as well.
I also ask the committee to look at new ways to calculate
commuter tax credits. While our current system is based on
miles traveled, anyone who knows New York City knows that that
is not enough. Most drivers commute far less than 15 miles, yet
it often takes an hour to get there.
On top of that, my district has the dubious honor of having
the most expensive toll bridge in the country. We are getting
squeezed on all sides, and it is only getting worse.
If nothing else, calculating commuter tax credits according
to the real cost of commuting would be an equitable step in
providing a much-needed sense of relief.
Lastly, I want to encourage the committee to build in
competitive grant programs that support innovation in
transportation. We have seen how ride-hailing technology has
reshaped how Americans move around. And I believe that, with
Federal support, we can develop equally revolutionary methods
of reducing the number of cars on the road, while getting
people where they need to go quickly and reliably.
For instance, investment that improves access to mass
transit can significantly increase ridership on Staten Island
and South Brooklyn. We would love to use mass transit more, but
it just needs to be a viable option for all of us. We have
transit deserts, where it is a 5-mile ride or a 2-mile to the
closest express bus, and people have to drive to get there, and
it causes incredible congestion.
In my conversations with members of this committee I have
been encouraged by your desire to affect real change in the way
that Americans move around. We have all come here to make the
American people's lives better, and I have shared with many of
you the sentiment that there is no better way to do that than
to ensure that people get to and from work quickly and
reliably.
Thank you again for this opportunity to speak before you,
and I look forward to working with all of you, going forward.
[Mr. Rose's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Max Rose, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York
Thank you Mr. Chairman,
First off, I'd like to thank Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member
Graves for hosting this hearing.
I appreciate the opportunity to come before the Committee to
highlight some of the major challenges facing my district of Staten
Island and South Brooklyn.
Despite being part of New York City, you'd never think it based on
how my district gets around.
68 percent of Staten Island drives to and from work, as opposed to
22 percent in Manhattan.
I've heard people blame Staten Island's ``car culture'' for the
City's congestion problem--but that just ignores the root cause of the
issue.
Because for too many of my constituents, public transit just isn't
a reliable or credible alternative.
And until that changes, we need to stop punishing hardworking
people who are just trying to get to work on time.
The reason we're stuck in this situation is that my district has
been forgotten when it comes to federal, state and local attention to
our transportation needs.
When it comes time to invest in transportation projects, Staten
Island and South Brooklyn have been second thoughts throughout the
years. Staten Island has one railroad, one ferry, and an express buses
system to Manhattan.
The R Train which serves South Brooklyn is currently scheduled to
receive signal upgrades to our subways in a decade.
A decade.
I understand that many communities around New York City and the
country need improvements to their daily commutes.
But so do my constituents--and we can't wait another ten years for
it.
As always, I didn't just come here to complain.
I came with some real proposals that can make a difference in my
constituents' lives.
First, I encourage the committee to sit down and craft a long-term
infrastructure bill. An infrastructure bill that makes real,
significant investments to make American infrastructure the envy of the
world again.
I want it, the American people want it, and I know that many
members of this committee want it.
Let's come together and get to work on behalf of the American
people.
Second, I'd like to ask the Committee to look at new ways to
calculate commuter tax credits.
While the current system is based on miles travelled, anyone who
knows New York City knows just doesn't help.
Most drivers commute for less than 15 miles, yet it often takes
more than an hour to get there.
On top of that, my district has the dubious honor of having the
most expensive tolled bridge in the country.
My constituents are getting squeezed on all sides, hit with longer
and longer commutes, tolls that keep going up, and often times no real
alternative mode of transit.
If nothing else, calculating commuter tax credits according to the
real cost of commuting would be an equitable step and provide a much
needed sense of relief.
Lastly, I want to encourage the Committee to build in competitive
grant programs that support innovation in transportation.
We've seen how ride-hailing technology has reshaped how Americans
move around, and I believe that with federal support, we can develop
equally revolutionary methods of reducing the number of cars on the
road while getting people where they need to go quickly and reliably.
For instance, investment that improves access to mass transit can
significantly increase ridership in Staten Island and South Brooklyn.
We would love to use mass transit more, but it needs to be a viable
option for us.
In my conversations with Members of this Committee, I've been
encouraged by your desire to effect real change in the way that America
moves around.
We all came here to make the American people's lives better, and
I've shared with many of you the sentiment that there's no better way
to do that than to ensure people get to and from work quickly and
reliably and can spend more time at home with their families.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak, I look forward to working
with you all going forward.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. So we can move things
along, does anyone have a question for the gentleman?
If not, I congratulate you on your testimony. You said much
that I think you will find support for on this committee. We
would love to work with you on your particular concerns about
getting access to the mass transit.
Mr. Rose. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. With that we will turn next to the
Honorable Gwen Moore for her 5 minutes.
Gwen, proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. GWEN MOORE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Ms. Moore. Thank you so much, Chairman DeFazio and Ranking
Member Graves. I really appreciate this opportunity to talk
about our Nation's infrastructure priorities.
And, as you know, robust investment in infrastructure is a
win-win-win situation. If we update our infrastructure, we put
millions of Americans to work in good-paying jobs, and continue
to help our communities be economically competitive.
Transportation projects mean jobs and businesses for
communities across our Nation. The Business Roundtable
estimated that a significant Federal infrastructure investment
would, one, increase real disposable income for Wisconsin
households by an average of $1,200 per year and create 16,000
more Wisconsin jobs over the next decade.
Mr. Chairman, as you put together an infrastructure
package, I hope that you will consider a new Water Resources
Development Act, and reauthorize the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act, and I hope that you address the following
priorities.
Make sure that infrastructure investments are inclusive of
all communities, supporting investments in public
transportation and supporting investments in water
infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, we hear a whole lot about Flint, Michigan.
But let me tell you the children that are poisoned by lead in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, there is a two-tenths of 1 percent
difference in what is happening in Flint and what is happening
in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. When I learned that my granddaughter
was pregnant, the first thing I did was called up and started
buying water, because of her--and I know that my constituents
can't afford that.
Mr. Chairman, it must remain a Federal priority to ensure
that all communities could benefit from investments in
infrastructure. And by that I don't just mean geographic areas
where the funds are disbursed, but also diversity in the groups
that receive the money, that undertake these projects, and who
are employed on these projects. Congress has long recognized
rightly that certain businesses, especially small and
disadvantaged enterprises owned by minorities and women, face
obstacles in competing for and winning transportation
contracts.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, without objection, I
would hope that you would enter into the record a letter that I
sent you, and a list of DBEs willing to testify before this
committee.
Mr. DeFazio. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Letter of February 8, 2019, from Hon. Gwen Moore, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Wisconsin, et al., Submitted for the Record
by Hon. Gwen Moore
February 8, 2019.
The Honorable Peter DeFazio,
Chairman,
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2164 Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman DeFazio,
As you put together an infrastructure package, we write to urge you
to take steps to ensure that minority contractors can fully participate
in all projects funded by any proposal in the 116th Congress. We urge
the inclusion of funding and provisions in any such proposal that help
facilitate the certification of these contractors as well as to support
their ability to fairly compete and win work. Additionally, we urge you
to ensure that all hearings on an infrastructure package in the 116th
Congress include the voices and viewpoints of minority contractors who
can testify to the ongoing challenges they face in competing for and
winning work on federally funded infrastructure projects.
Transportation projects mean jobs and businesses for communities
across our nation and ensuring that all businesses in our communities,
including small and disadvantaged concerns owned businesses, must
remain a priority.
Unfortunately, too often, the promises provided by federal law and
regulations regarding minority contractor participation in federally
funded infrastructure projects fall well short of the reality. Despite
some successes, many states are still struggling to meet participation
goals and requirements with their regular federal infrastructure
funding, when such goals and requirements are attached. What these
challenges do point out is the need for lawmakers to continue to make
forceful efforts to attack the historically and ongoing inequality when
it comes to federal infrastructure contracting.
I know you agree with us that a new infrastructure package must
benefit all stakeholders, including minority contractors. Therefore,
including the voices of minority contractors in the development of an
infrastructure package, including hearings on such a package, is a
necessary first step. Hearing from these stakeholders will allow you to
better understand existing gaps in federal and state participation
requirements and help get to the bottom of the most frequent complaints
and problems. And the message you will most likely hear is that the
Department of Transportation (DOT) needs to improve the effectiveness
and oversight of its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program,
including better enforcement.
The DOT's implementation of its DBE programs has been the subject
of numerous reports by its Office of Inspector General (IG),
highlighting problems with the Department's various DBE programs
including at the Federal Aviation Administration. One of the most
glaring conclusions from the past reports is the IG's conclusion that
``[t]he Department does not provide effective program management for
the multibillion-dollar DBE program.'' Before we pour billions more of
federal transportation dollars through DOT to the states as a part of
an infrastructure package or surface transportation reauthorization,
Congress should listen to, and then appropriately respond to, the needs
and concerns of stakeholders, including minority contractors and the
IG. And any such package should incorporate their ideas about how to
best construct a proposal to help ensure that all communities truly
benefit and have a fair and equal opportunity to compete for the
thousands of contracts and subcontracts that are likely to flow from
that package.
We also know that without pressure from Congress, long overdue but
needed improvement will not occur and these business and our
communities will find themselves remaining on the sidelines, even as
billions in new funding flow to communities nationwide.
Again, as you move forward on constructing the infrastructure
package that our nation needs, we must consider and address the needs
of these qualified but often overlooked businesses. The fact is that
despite repeated affirmation by Congress, some states still make no or
limited efforts to help certified firms obtain DBE work on federally
funded projects and in others, most certified DBEs never win any
business should concern and trouble us as policymakers.
Lastly, one step such legislation can take is to make clear that
all infrastructure agencies have a responsibility for implementing and
enforcing rules, guidance, and federal laws which require equal
employment and labor opportunities in federal contracting such as
Executive Order 11246 (Equal Employment Opportunity). That E.O.
requires agencies to include certain nondiscrimination and equal
employment opportunity provisions in federal contracts, including
federally assisted construction contracts. Unfortunately, we are
concerned that this Administration's weak record and blatant attempts
to roll back important protections enshrined in federal contracting law
and regulations will have a disparate impact on minority communities
and contractors.
There is no reason why any package to invest in our infrastructure
in order to foster a safe and modern transportation system should not
also help small businesses like yours. These are not conflicting goals;
it actually makes good and sound economic and transportation policy.
As Members of Congress who care deeply about ending unequal access
to federal contracts and addressing our nation's glaring infrastructure
needs, we hope you understand the need to make sure both goals are met
in any infrastructure package and will work with us to achieve them.
Sincerely,
Gwen Moore,
Member of Congress.
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson,
Member of Congress.
Jan Schakowsky,
Member of Congress.
Marc Veasey,
Member of Congress.
Bobby L. Rush,
Member of Congress.
Karen Bass,
Member of Congress.
Suzanne Bonamici,
Member of Congress.
Ayanna Pressley,
Member of Congress.
Brenda L. Lawrence,
Member of Congress.
Donald Payne, Jr.,
Member of Congress.
Yvette D. Clarke,
Member of Congress.
Earl Blumenauer,
Member of Congress.
Nydia M. Velazquez,
Member of Congress.
Rashida Tlaib,
Member of Congress.
Andre Carson,
Member of Congress.
Sanford D. Bishop,
Member of Congress.
Bonnie Watson Coleman,
Member of Congress.
Joyce Beatty,
Member of Congress.
Mark Pocan,
Member of Congress.
Lauren Underwood,
Member of Congress.
Grace Meng,
Member of Congress.
Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member of Congress.
Robin L. Kelly,
Member of Congress.
Gregory Meeks,
Member of Congress.
Al Lawson, Jr.
Member of Congress.
Alcee Hastings,
Member of Congress.
Sheila Jackson Lee,
Member of Congress.
Jaoquin Castro,
Member of Congress.
Adam Smith,
Member of Congress.
Marcia L. Fudge,
Member of Congress.
Terri A. Sewell,
Member of Congress.
Tony Cardenas,
Member of Congress.
Betty McCollum,
Member of Congress.
Collin Peterson,
Member of Congress.
Ilhan Omar,
Member of Congress.
Debbie Dingell,
Member of Congress.
Bennie Thompson,
Member of Congress.
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia,
Member of Congress.
David Scott,
Member of Congress.
Adriano Espaillat,
Member of Congress.
William Lacy Clay,
Member of Congress.
Angie Craig,
Member of Congress.
Ruben Gallego,
Member of Congress.
John Lewis,
Member of Congress.
Anthony Brown,
Member of Congress.
List of DBEs willing to testify, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Gwen
Moore
List for DBE's willing to testify
National Association of Minority Contractors
Minnesota Chapter
Contact: Carlo Lachmansingh (DBE--Minnesota)
National Association of Minority Contractors
Wisconsin Chapter
Contact: Brian Mitchell
National Association of Minority Contractors
Oregon Chapter
Contact: James Posey
Chris Packer, President (DBE--Ohio)
Rod-Techs, Inc.
1727 West Galbraith Rd., Cincinnati, Ohio 45239 (Physical Address)
P.O. Box 101, Milford, Ohio 45150 (Mailing Address)
Elton L. Mason
WST/Owner
King County SCS Certification # 1052
W.S.D.O.T. DBE Approved Gravel Manufacture
MBE/DBE--D3M9621431 Prime NAICS: 484220
Trucking--Sand & Gravel Sales--Dump Sites--Statewide
Jerome Perry, President (DBE--Minnesota)
President, Highway Solutions, Inc.
Dr. Samuel L. Myers, Jr., Professor, Chair of Roy Wilkins Center for
Human Relations and Social Justice, Humphrey Institute
Lennie Chism, Executive Director
Springboard Economic Development
Ms. Moore. Thank you. Now, despite our progress, Mr.
Chairman, too many qualified minority businesses are still
being frustrated in their attempts to work at federally funded
transportation projects, an outcome that I hope we can avoid as
work begins on an infrastructure package.
That is the message that these 45 of my colleagues joined
with me on this letter to the committee earlier this year.
Simply just hoping and praying and wishing that minority and
small contractors get an opportunity, those who already face
obstacles will get an opportunity, is just naive and damaging.
We don't find, the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, that there is any followup on making sure that these
protocols are in place. We need to be proactive, Mr. Chairman.
Because when Congress is silent, little to no DBE participation
occurs. We want to strengthen the DOT programs focusing on
helping DBEs increase access to capital.
And lastly, we hope you will consider the public-private
partnership concepts. Please keep in mind to put in place
safeguards that ensure minority participation.
I am running out of time, so I do want to mention that any
infrastructure package must be inclusive of Tribal communities,
including strengthening requirements that Federal agencies
consult and engage with Tribal communities in a meaningful way.
Federal policy and Executive orders call for it, and it is not
always the reality.
As noted by the National Congress of American Indians,
Indian reservation roads, which make up the principal
transportation system for residents and visitors to Tribal and
Alaska Native communities, are some of the most underdeveloped
networks in our Nation.
I just want to mention in my last 17 seconds that we need a
well-funded public transportation system.
And again, water. It has no enemies, and--but we are--it is
endangering all of our lives, as we fail to deal with those
investments.
And I yield back my 1 second.
[Ms. Moore's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gwen Moore, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Wisconsin
Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves,
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today about our nation's
infrastructure priorities. As you know, robust investment in
infrastructure is a win-win-win: we update the infrastructure, put
millions of Americans to work in good-paying jobs, and continue to help
our communities be economically competitive.
Transportation projects mean jobs and businesses for communities
across our nation. Both of you know the stats better than anyone.
According to the Business Roundtable, a significant infrastructure
investment will increase real disposable income for Wisconsin
households by an average of about $1200 more per year over 20 years.
For Wisconsin families, that's real money. The same report found that
significant reinvestment in U.S. public infrastructure systems would
create 16,000 additional Wisconsin jobs over the next decade.
In addition, that analysis found that increased infrastructure
investment over a 20-year period would result in other benefits to
Wisconsin, including $54 billion of additional output from personal and
non-tradable services; $30 billion of additional output from durables
manufacturing; and, $21 billion of additional output from finance,
insurance and real estate.
As you put together an infrastructure package, consider a new Water
Resources Development Act, and reauthorization of the Fixing America's
Surface Transportation Act, I hope you address the following
priorities:
Inclusive Infrastructure Investments
It must remain a federal priority to ensure that all communities
can benefit from investments in infrastructure. And by that I don't
just mean the geographically areas where the funds are dispersed, but
also diversity in the groups that receive the money to undertake these
projects and who are employed on these projects.
Congress has long recognized that certain businesses, especially
small and disadvantaged enterprises owned by minorities and women, have
faced obstacles competing for and winning such business and has taken
steps to rectify those injustices. Yet, despite progress, too many
qualified minority businesses are still being frustrated in their
attempts to win work on federally funded transportation projects, an
outcome that I hope we can avoid as work begins on a robust national
infrastructure package. Some of the frustrations I continue to hear are
lack of guidance, training, and enforcement regarding participation
requirements by federal and state officials overseeing infrastructure
funds.
That is the message that 45 of my colleagues joined me on a letter
to you earlier this year. We learned the lesson from the 2009 American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) that simply hoping that minority
and small contractors--again that we know already face great obstacles
to winning work--will just naturally benefit from federal
infrastructure investments is naive and damaging.
I appreciate the small steps taken in last year's FAA
Reauthorization Act and the FAST Act. In both, you added provisions to
strengthen oversight of federal prompt payment requirements, which is a
major concern for small businesses. Those provision will hopefully
encourage the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to both better
track this issue and provide more assistance to help resolve delayed
payments to Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) and other small
businesses, which can be a life or death issue for these businesses.
But we need to do more as made clear by stakeholders and numerous
DOT Inspector General reports. The DOT's implementation of its DBE
programs has been the subject of numerous reports by its Inspector
General (IG), highlighting problems with DOT's various DBE programs.
One of the most glaring conclusions from the past reports is the IG's
conclusion that ``[t]he Department does not provide effective program
management for the multibillion-dollar DBE program.'' Before we pour
billions more of federal transportation dollars to the states as a part
of an infrastructure package or surface transportation reauthorization,
Congress should listen to, and then appropriately respond to, the needs
and concerns of minority contractors and the IG.
As Congress considers infrastructure, we have to proactively engage
these communities and strengthen the law and resources dedicated to
helping all businesses compete for and win work.
For example, all federal infrastructure agencies have a
responsibility for implementing and enforcing rules, guidance, and
federal laws that require equal employment and labor opportunities in
federal contracting such as Executive Order 11246 (Equal Employment
Opportunity). That E.O. requires federal agencies to include certain
nondiscrimination and equal employment opportunity provisions in
federal contracts, including federally assisted construction contracts.
Unfortunately, what is written on paper and what happens in the real
world often don't line up, much to the frustration of these qualified
businesses.
One small first step is ensuring that the voices of minority
contractors are included in hearings to consider transportation and
infrastructure legislation. Hearing from these stakeholders will allow
you to better understand existing gaps in federal and state
participation requirements and help get to the bottom of the most
frequent complaints and problems. Hearing from these contractors will
also help the Committee establish a strong record on the need to
address under-representation and continuing discrimination in surface
transportation contracting. I have a list attached to my testimony that
I am pleased to share with the committee.
And the message you will most likely hear is that the DOT needs to
improve the effectiveness and oversight of its DBE program, including
better enforcement.
Some specific suggestions as you consider infrastructure
investments:
1. Strengthen efforts to increase DBE participation, including by
adding new requirements or encouragement to use these businesses where
none currently exist.
i. Require DBE participation or engagement for Passenger Facility
Charges (PFC's) funded projects. Since its creation in 1990, the PFC
program has allowed airports to apply to impose local charges to
finance and pay for capital development projects. Unlike the AIP
program, the PFC statute does not require an airport to establish DBE
participation goals for PFC-only financed projects or to make good
faith efforts to include DBEs.
ii. As the annual total raised by PFC's approaches AIP funding, we
know that DBE participation on those projects is lagging. One study
found that DBE participation in PFC-only financed projects is
substantially lower than the rate for AIP financed projects. That
report noted that MIA spent $435 million on PFC-only financed projects
but reported no DBE participation/spend on these projects. By contrast
MIA's AIP spending was $102 million with a DBE participation rate of
15% which again reiterates the importance of participation
requirements.
iii. The existence of little to no federal encouragement in the
PFC program to use DBE's or small businesses is resulting in little to
no participation which runs contrary to Congress' long standing policy
in this area.
2. Expand the DOT's DBE Supportive Services Program
i. This program provides training, assistance, and services to
minority, disadvantaged, and women-owned enterprises in order to help
these firms develop into viable, self-sustaining businesses. The
program receives about $10 million annually, about the same level it
has received since its creation in 1982.
Increase funding for the Department's Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization
i. The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization's
mission is to ensure that the small and disadvantaged business policies
and goals of the Secretary of Transportation are developed and
implemented throughout the Department in a fair, efficient, and
effective manner to serve small and disadvantaged businesses across the
country. This includes the Office's short-term lending and bonding
assistance programs to help small businesses overcome financial
barriers to participation.
ii. Its funding has been flat funded for too long. For just small
additional investments, this existing office can be better position to
support the engagement of DBE's.
Increase access to capital
i. Increase funding for DOT's Minority Business Outreach: The
Office provides contractual support to assist small, women-owned,
Native American, and other disadvantaged business firms in securing
contracts and subcontracts resulting from transportation-related
Federal support.
ii. Increase funding for DOT's Minority Business Resource Center:
This program provides assistance in obtaining short-term working
capital for minority, women-owned and other disadvantaged businesses
and Small Business Administration 8(a) firms. This account includes the
subsidy costs for capital obtained through this program as well as
administrative expenses.
This could be an opportunity to re-envision this
agency. Changes in the past few years have slashed its budget and its
lending authority. While it makes sense to help consolidate and
strengthen SBA programs when appropriate, it may be worthwhile for the
DOT to retain some ability to address capital needs of DBE contractors.
Increase funding for DOT oversight, reporting, and enforcement of DBE
requirements
i. Increase oversight of state DBE performance including better
tracking of the results of funding set-aside for DBE's or won by DBE's,
including ensuring that states and other grantees are providing
accurate data, including on the DBE certification process.
ii. Transparency in how federal dollars are spent in the DBE
program is critical for ensuring accountability in the program and
ensuring the effective and efficient performance and management of the
program. For example, Congress and the states must be able to compare
actual DBE spending data reported by state DOTs to state DOTs' DBE
goals in a meaningful way. I know this has been an area of concern in
the past and I hope you will work to address it moving forward.
Provisions encouraging or incentivizing the use of best practices
Provide greater funding incentives to recipients who
unbundle contracts. Unbundling of contracts has been shown time and
time again to be a great way to increase DBE and small business
participation.
Lastly, there has been some discussion about the pros and cons of
public-private partnerships (P3). As you consider P3 concepts, I just
hope that you keep in mind the needs of minority contractors and put in
place safeguards that help ensure minority participation. Or that tool
simply becomes another avenue to get around longstanding federal
minority participation requirements.
Tribal Communities
I would be remiss if I did not mention the need to ensure that any
infrastructure package must be inclusive of tribal communities. A key
part of that is to ensure that federal agencies spending these dollars
consult and engage with tribal communities in a meaningful way on
projects in or affecting their communities. Doing so is a key way of
respecting these sovereign communities. Federal policy and Executive
Orders call for it. But we need meaningful provisions in any
infrastructure bill to make real and consistent consultation a reality.
As noted by the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI),
Indian reservation roads, which make up the principal transportation
system for residents and visitors to tribal and Alaska Native
communities, are some of the most underdeveloped road network in the
nation. This is just one example of the many inequities between Native
and non-Native communities. Congress has the opportunity to address
tribal infrastructure gaps and we should.
Unsafe reservation road conditions are a significant barrier to
economic development and efforts to improve living conditions on
reservations will be frustrated if we miss this opportunity. According
to NCAI, tribal communities have ``an unmet immediate need of well over
$258 million in maintenance funding for roads and bridges.''
The poor condition of these roads, bridges, and transit systems
jeopardizes the health, safety, security, and economic well-being of
tribal members and the traveling public. Data I have seen from my state
of Wisconsin shows that in 2012, crashes on tribal lands resulted in
fatalities at almost four times the statewide rate.
One recommendation is to create a new roads maintenance program
that targets road and bridge projects on tribal lands that would
rectify treacherous conditions, taking condition, remoteness and impact
of weather/seasons, into consideration.
I would also recommend the recent GAO Report 19-22: Tribal
Consultation: Additional Federal Actions Needed for Infrastructure
Projects for specific ways to help ensure that agencies consult,
consider, and address the needs in these communities. For example, I
strongly support the GAO recommendation that the Administrator of the
Federal Highway Administration document in the agency's tribal
consultation policy how agency officials communicate with tribes about
how tribal input from consultation was considered in the agency's
decisions. It should embarrass us that an agency that receives tens of
billions of dollars each year to build and maintain roads and bridges
has a consultation policy that doesn't require them to tell tribes how
their input was used in the decision making process. Consultation for
the sake of checking a box is not consultation.
Public Transportation
A well-funded public transportation system is vital to economic
competitiveness and development, especially as job centers shift and
change. Please significantly boost investments in public
transportation.
Public transportation remains a vital need in my community; and
must remain be a key part of any infrastructure package. Public
transportation is essential to moving people in both rural and urban
areas and is a key part of any strong multimodal transportation system.
Public transportation also provides a basic mobility option for
seniors, those with disabilities, and low-income individuals. The vast
majority of transit trips are work related or education related.
In the last decade, too many transit systems found themselves
without sufficient federal, state or local support, and often have no
choice but to raise fares, cut service, or both. When local transit
spending has increased, nearly all has been directed to pay for the
increasingly expensive maintenance of an aging fleet of vehicles.
Today, over 40% of buses and 25% of rail transit assets are in marginal
or poor condition. Estimates from the National State of Good Repair
Assessment indicate that there is an $86 billion backlog of deferred
maintenance and replacement needs--a backlog that continues to grow.
Unfortunately, with aging transit fleets, now is not the time to
skimp on needed investments. MAP-21 took a drastic step backwards when
it cut public transportation funding. Let's not repeat that mistake.
We need to continue to strongly invest in public transportation and
programs that ensure that those with the most mobility barriers, such
as low-income communities, also benefit from a rebuilt and stronger
transportation network.
The American Society of Civil Engineers gave public transportation
a D- on its most recent report card. New transportation legislation
should spur innovation and provide new funding streams that allow
greater investment in multi-modal transportation, infrastructure,
mobility management, bus transit systems, and other public transit
systems.
Even before we get to the expiration of the FAST Act, I was alarmed
by a recent report from the Congressional Research Service that warned
unless legislative action is taken, formula funding for the federal
transit program could be decreased by approximately $1 billion in
FY2020, roughly 12% of the total in the FAST Act. The result is
reductions in almost all major federal transit grants to buy new buses,
railcars, to maintain facilities, and, in the case of many smaller
systems, for operating expenses.
Our communities cannot afford another reduction in federal
investment in transit. In my district, between 2001 and 2010, the
largest transit provider in my district cut bus service hours by 20
percent. One study on the impact of those cuts estimated that in 2014,
this system served 1,300 fewer employers (about 31,000 jobs) than would
be the case if the transit system of 2001 were still in place.
That means that nearly 31,000 jobs became transit inaccessible
which is problem for both employees and the employers. No community can
thrive if you have a growing gap between where employers are located
and the ability of prospective employees to get there.
Water
The cost needed to repair and replace crumbling drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure just in the eight Great Lakes states of
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and New York is about $179 billion over 20 years according to the EPA.
The Committee knows better than everyone that we cannot afford to
delay or neglect the needed investment in our water infrastructure.
I urge the Committee to provide a significant boost for water
infrastructure programs under its jurisdiction. As part of those
efforts, I hope you will include provisions to create greater awareness
about a growing problem: the inability of people to pay their water
bills. Along with long delayed investment, water affordability is
quickly rising as an issue that policy makers must address. Higher
water rates, which are frequently a part of efforts to fund
infrastructure improvements at the local level, do not work for
families that already cannot pay their water bills and face water
shutoffs that jeopardize their health and the health of their children.
According to data from the U.S. Water Alliance and other experts,
from 2010 to 2017, water costs increased 41 percent across the country.
While water rates rise for consumers, federal funding for water
infrastructure has dropped significantly since 1977. In that year,
investments from the federal government made up 63 percent of total
spending on water infrastructure. By 2014, the federal government's
contribution had dropped to 9 percent.
One of the best ways the federal government can help is to pass an
infrastructure bill that includes robust support for fixing drinking
water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure.
And any additional funding should:
1. Include provisions to help ensure affordability for households,
income the most vulnerable. Ratepayers support the vast majority of
water infrastructure investments but there is a limit to the ability of
many individuals and families to continue to bear ever increasing
costs.
ii. Ensure that the federal government supports the increased use
of green infrastructure and nature-based solutions such as restoring
wetlands, rain gardens, and permeable roads and sidewalks.
iii. Ensure that infrastructure legislation does not undermine or
weaken environmental protections.
Infrastructure is so important to our communities and the need for
investment is so great. It is critical that we get it right. Thank you
for allowing me to share the priorities for my community and I look
forward to working with you to address our nation's infrastructure
needs.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady. She packed a lot into
the 5 minutes.
You would be happy to hear that, at the conversation at the
White House yesterday regarding transportation infrastructure,
the President himself brought up water issues. So I look at
that as a good sign, and moving forward on some of those
concerns.
And DBE oversight, I agree with the gentlelady. We have
left too much to the States, and some States are doing well and
others aren't. And we need to look there, and we are going to
need technical education and continuing education to get the
workforce we are going to need, which could certainly impact
the communities you are talking about.
And then finally, on the Tribes, I know in the FAST Act I
got a provision in there to allow self-governance for
transportation. DOT didn't do a very good job of writing the
rules, but they are doing a rewrite now, and the Tribes tell me
it is going very well. So hopefully we will have that pretty
soon. So I thank you for your testimony.
Ms. Moore. Thank you so much.
Mr. DeFazio. Does anyone else have questions for the
gentlelady?
OK, hearing none, thank you very much.
OK, move on in order of arrival to the Honorable Lori
Trahan from the great State of Massachusetts.
TESTIMONY OF HON. LORI TRAHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mrs. Trahan. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member
Graves, members of the committee. Thank you for allowing me to
share my priorities with you this morning.
First, I ask that the committee approve the strong pipeline
safety bill before the current law expires this year. Some of
you may remember that I testified before the Subcommittee on
Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials a month ago on
this very issue.
I have no higher priority than to ensure that the residents
of my district and of your districts are safe from the kind of
preventable disaster that struck the Merrimack Valley last
September. It destroyed homes, shuttered businesses, injured
first responders and residents, and took a young man's life.
On April 9th I introduced the Leonel Rondon Pipeline Safety
Act. This bill, which was developed in close partnership with
Senators Markey and Warren, as well as Representatives Moulton
and Kennedy, includes a series of recommendations drawn from
the National Transportation Safety Board interim report last
November. It has been referred to this committee, as well as to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which I understand is
holding a hearing on pipeline safety at this moment.
I ask that you give full consideration to H.R. 2139, so
that this type of disaster never happens to a community again.
Second, I ask that the committee ensure that wastewater
infrastructure is a pillar of any infrastructure package that
you develop.
On Monday morning I convened a Merrimack River stakeholders
meeting at the wastewater treatment plant in my hometown of
Lowell. Among the key messages that I heard was the need for
stable, reliable, and robust Federal funding for wastewater
improvements. The chairman's bill, the Water Quality Protection
and Job Creation Act, is an excellent starting point for this
part of the infrastructure package, and I strongly support it.
This week I will be introducing the Stop Sewage Overflow
Act, which would refine the Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse
Municipal Grants program, which was authorized last fall as
part of the America's Water Infrastructure Act. My bill has
four components.
First, it increases the grant's authorization level to $500
million, annually. According to the EPA's most recent Clean
Water Needs Survey, nearly $50 billion is needed for combined
sewer overflow correction. Ever since the EPA's construction
grants program was eclipsed by the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund, cities and towns have shouldered an ever-greater share of
the burden of improving their wastewater infrastructure.
In Massachusetts, nearly $1 billion is needed for
improvements to combined sewer systems, and it is estimated
that there are more than 800 such communities across the
Nation, including in Oregon and Missouri. The grant program's
authorization level should be increased to more closely track
with the degree of need across the Nation.
Second, my bill would extend the program's authorization
through 2030. Communities with major wastewater infrastructure
improvement needs deserve the assurance that the Federal
Government intends to be a partner with them over the long
term. And thus, I encourage the committee to approve a 10-year
extension so that CSO communities can be certain of our
commitment to them.
Third, it adds a new prioritization criterion that grant
support should be targeted to communities with high levels of
sewage in their rivers. Last year 800 million gallons of raw
sewage and stormwater entered the Merrimack River, which is a
drinking water supply for hundreds of thousands of people and a
regional recreational asset. State revolving funds have been
useful to communities since the construction grants went away.
However, underserved communities with major CSO challenges need
grant support, not just loans.
Finally, my bill would reduce the local cost share
requirement for a grant. It would be based upon a community's
ability to pay for sewer system improvements. In Lowell,
ratepayers spend approximately $550 annually on their sewer
service. The 20th percentile of annual household income in the
city is only $16,000. These households are paying approximately
3.5 percent of their annual income for their sewer service. The
local cost share requirement should correspond to the
percentage of household income these families are already
paying for their sewer.
It is our responsibility here in Congress to provide our
communities with clean water and to ensure their safety and
peace through accountability. So again, I hope that the
committee will give full consideration to the Leonel Rondon
Pipeline Safety Act, as well as the Stop Sewage Overflow Act.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify and for your
leadership.
[Mrs. Trahan's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lori Trahan, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves, thank you for allowing
me to share my priorities with you this morning.
First, I ask that the Committee approve a strong pipeline safety
bill before the current law expires this year.
Some of you may remember that I testified before the Pipeline
Subcommittee a month ago on this very issue.
I have no higher priority than to ensure that the residents of my
District and your Districts are safe from the kind of preventable
disaster that struck the Merrimack Valley last September.
It destroyed homes, shuttered businesses, injured first responders
and residents, and took a young life.
On April 9th, I introduced the Leonel Rondon Pipeline Safety Act.
This bill, which was developed in close partnership with Senators
Markey and Warren as well as Representatives Moulton and Kennedy,
includes a series of recommendations drawn from the National
Transportation Safety Board's interim report, issued last November.
It's been referred to this Committee as well as the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, which, I understand, is holding a hearing on
pipeline safety at this very moment.
I ask you to give full consideration to H.R. 2-1-3-9 so that this
type of disaster never happens to a community again.
Second, I ask the Committee to ensure that wastewater
infrastructure is a pillar of any infrastructure package that you
develop.
On Monday morning, I convened a Merrimack River stakeholders
meeting at the wastewater treatment plant in my hometown of Lowell.
Among the key messages that I heard was the need for stable,
reliable, and robust federal funding for wastewater improvements.
The Chairman's bill, the Water Quality Protection and Job Creation
Act, is an excellent starting point for this part of the infrastructure
package.
I strongly support it.
This week, I will be introducing the Stop Sewage Act, which would
refine the Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grants
program, which was authorized last fall as part of the America's Water
Infrastructure Act.
My bill has 4 components.
First, it increases the grant's authorization level to $500 million
annually.
According to the EPA's most recent ``Clean Water Needs Survey,''
nearly $50 billion is needed for combined sewer overflow correction.
Ever since the EPA's Construction grants program was eclipsed by
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, cities and towns have shouldered
an ever-greater share of the burden of improving their wastewater
infrastructure.
In Massachusetts, nearly $1 billion is needed for improvements to
combined sewer systems.
And it is estimated that there are more than 800 such communities
across the nation, including in Oregon and Missouri.
The grant program's authorization level should be increased to more
closely track with the degree of need across the nation.
Second, my bill would extend the program's authorization through
2030.
Communities with major wastewater infrastructure improvement needs
deserve the assurance that the federal government intends to be a
partner with them over the long term.
And thus, I encourage the Committee to approve a 10-year extension
so that CSO communities can be certain of our commitment to them.
Third, it adds a new prioritization criterion that grant support
should be targeted to communities with high levels of sewage in their
rivers.
Last year, 800 million gallons of raw sewage and stormwater entered
the Merrimack River--which is a drinking water supply for hundreds of
thousands of people and a regional recreational asset.
State Revolving Funds have been useful to communities since the
construction grants went away.
However, underserved communities with major CSO challenges need
grant support, not just loans.
Finally, my bill would reduce the local cost-share requirement for
a grant. It would be based upon a community's ability to pay for sewer
system improvements.
In Lowell, ratepayers spend approximately $550 annually on sewer
service.
The 20th percentile of annual household income in the city is
$16,000.
These households are paying approximately 3.5% of their annual
income for sewer service.
The local cost share requirement should correspond to the
percentage of household income these families are already paying for
sewer service.
It is our responsibility to provide our communities with clean
water and ensure their safety and peace with accountability.
Again, I hope that the Committee will give full consideration to
the Leonel Rondon Pipeline Safety Act as well as the Stop Sewage Act.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady. I thank you for your
legislative proposals, both in pipeline safety--and we will be
writing a bill this year--and in wastewater, where we also
intend to write a bill. So those will be helpful, and I thought
your suggestions regarding particularly low-income communities
were very well taken. I have similar concerns in my district.
So thank you very much.
Does anyone on the panel have questions for the gentlelady?
OK. With that, thank you very much.
Mrs. Trahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. And I think in order of arrival, Cheri was
next.
OK, the Honorable Cheri Bustos from Illinois.
TESTIMONY OF HON. CHERI BUSTOS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mrs. Bustos. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, and thank you,
Ranking Member Graves----
Mr. DeFazio. Oh, a former member of this committee.
Mrs. Bustos. I know----
Mr. DeFazio. We miss you.
Mrs. Bustos. Mr. Chairman, I start out by saying----
Mr. DeFazio. Look at this new room.
Mrs. Bustos [continuing]. I am very homesick. And while I
am very, very pleased to serve on the Committee on
Appropriations now, I miss you and it is great to see the
freshmen in the front row here. And so it is good to be back
here. So thank you for the opportunity.
What I would like to do is summarize and submit for the
record a document outlining what I believe any infrastructure
proposal should include, particularly to address the needs of
small towns in rural America. But before I dive in, what I
would like to note is that this document that I will submit for
the record, I initially presented to the White House back in
2017. I was invited to go over there; I was one of five Members
at the time. It was bipartisan, and laid out really kind of the
needs in rural America.
But I bring that up because I think it emphasizes the
importance of bipartisanship, and I know you understand that,
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, the importance of that.
The country that we are fortunate enough to live in, as we
look at a major investment in our infrastructure, going
forward, I think needs to--we need to look at three main
things.
First, we need to make sure that we direct Federal
investment to the areas with demonstrated need.
Number two, it should strengthen programs and target
support, like I mentioned earlier, for rural America and small
towns. It is very, very important to me and I know to some
folks here. I am looking at Abby Finkenauer, sitting right in
front of me. We share the Mississippi River. And so it is--I
really, really hope that we can focus on rural America.
Third, I think it maintains and expands policies like Buy
American and Davis-Bacon provisions. And I know also, Mr.
Chairman, how critical that is to you.
So I want to take a look at things that are very, very
important in the neck of the woods that I am fortunate enough
to represent. The congressional district, the 17th
Congressional District of Illinois--again, Congresswoman
Finkenauer and I share the Mississippi River. But in my
district we have nine locks and dams in the Upper Mississippi
and Illinois Rivers that are just in my congressional district
alone. If we have one single lock that goes down, literally it
puts a dead stop to the navigation of our goods that cross the
Mississippi River--or the Illinois River, in my case.
So we literally have 60 percent of the Nation's grain
exports go along these locks and dams in the congressional
district I serve. So even knowing that, we have $8.75 billion
in backlog needs along the Upper Mississippi. We need to expand
these from 600 feet to 1,200 feet. It is critical for the
movement of goods, as we go forward, and I would ask the
committee to consider that.
A couple other points that I would like to make is let's
take a look at freight traffic on roads, and make sure that we
look at the sustainable funding source for the Highway Trust
Fund. Again, Mr. Chairman, I know that is very, very important
to you.
If we look at rural roads across the country, 35 percent of
them are rated either poor or in mediocre condition. So I am
hoping that is part of what you will consider.
Additionally, an efficient rail network is important for
the transport of goods through rural areas. And also passenger
rail, we have got an Amtrak route from Chicago to Moline,
Illinois. I am hoping that eventually that will be able to go
into Iowa, as well, but we need to have a willing partner. But
for right now, that is something where we have got some Federal
funds set aside. I want to make sure that we follow through
with that.
Lastly, our Nation's airports, the smaller airports that
serve regions like mine want to make sure that our airports
serving these smaller communities are addressed along with the
aging air traffic control towers.
And I know that this falls outside this committee, but I
want to make mention of a comprehensive package that I hope
will include investment in education, healthcare, energy, and
broadband.
So, you know, I think we are fortunate enough that we had
our parents' generation that knew the importance of investing
in infrastructure. I know that the leadership of this committee
understands the need for future investment.
And with that, I am happy to--I have got 30 seconds, if you
want me to answer any questions. Otherwise, I will yield back
those 30 seconds of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Mrs. Bustos' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cheri Bustos, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois
Thank you Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves for giving me
the opportunity to share my Transportation and Infrastructure
priorities with the Committee today.
As you know, I served on this Committee for my first three terms,
and I have a strong appreciation for the essential work it does.
Although I'm excited to now play a part in appropriating funds for
the important programs you authorize, I would be lying if I said I
didn't miss the work and my colleagues on T&I.
Today, I would like to summarize and submit for the record a
document outlining principles that any infrastructure proposal should
include, particularly to address the needs of small towns and rural
communities.
But before I dive in, I should note that this document was
originally created when I visited the White House in 2017 to engage in
bipartisan discussions surrounding infrastructure. This underscores
that the path forward MUST be bipartisan.
This country needs significant investment in our infrastructure to
build a strong foundation for a successful economy. To do this, any
proposal should do three things:
First--it should direct federal investment to areas with
DEMONSTRATED need;
Second--it should STRENGTHEN programs that target support to rural
areas and small towns, like technical assistance;
And Third--it should MAINTAIN and EXPAND policies, like Buy
American and Davis-Bacon requirements, that support America's
manufacturers and workers.
Additionally, any proposal must address several modes of
transportation and types of infrastructure.
For example, I represent nine locks and dams along the Upper
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, and the failure of a single lock could
shut down traffic up and down the river system--a system that moves 60%
of the nation's grain exports.
However, the nation faces an $8.75 billion backlog of inland
waterway projects, and the locks on the Upper Mississippi need to be
upgraded to 1200 feet to accommodate the traffic and movement of goods
seen every year.
Investing in this type of infrastructure not only helps our
nation's farmers and boosts our economy, but it also helps every single
household that consumes these goods by making their movement to market
more efficient.
Increased freight traffic on roads, coupled with everyday use, also
means we need to invest more in our highways and bridges and provide a
sustainable funding source for the Highway Trust Fund.
In 2015, more than 35% of major rural roads across the country were
rated in poor and mediocre condition.
Congress needs to address this not only to help the economy, but
also to promote basic public safety.
Additionally, an efficient rail network is important for the
transport of goods through rural areas, in addition to the success of
passenger rail.
However, federal investments in passenger rail infrastructure have
lagged even while ridership on long-distance passenger rail routes that
serve the Heartland is growing.
We should continue to fund investments in passenger rail and
incentives for maintaining freight rail infrastructure.
Lastly, we need to make sure that any package invests in our
nation's airports, including airports serving smaller communities and
the country's aging air traffic control towers.
And although these fall outside of this Committee's jurisdiction, I
am hopeful that a comprehensive package would also include investment
in education, healthcare, energy, broadband, and housing
infrastructure.
My parents' generation left us a world-class infrastructure system,
and I look forward to working with you on these important initiatives
to meet that promise for generations to come.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady. And thanks in
particular for emphasizing the need in the inland waterways. We
tend to forget those in these discussions. I have been,
obviously, focused on recapturing the Harbor Maintenance Tax.
That will relieve some of the burden on the Corps, which could
free up some money, but we really need to look at increased
funding there, and how we can get there. And that actually came
up in the discussions yesterday with the President. Inland
waterways were part of the discussion.
Mrs. Bustos. Very glad to hear that.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes, yes. So--but we also look forward to your
help on appropriations.
Mrs. Bustos. I will be there for you.
Mr. DeFazio. Some of this will be discretionary money, and
some of it can be dedicated money. So we look forward to your
assistance there.
Does anyone have questions for the former member of the
committee, the gentlelady?
Yes, Ms. Finkenauer? You have 2 minutes.
Ms. Finkenauer. I feel like we are at home right now,
looking across the--you know, like we do with the Mississippi--
--
Mrs. Bustos. This is like the Mississippi.
Ms. Finkenauer. Yes, right across the river. But thank you
so much, Congresswoman Bustos, for bringing up, obviously, our
locks and dams and how important those are.
Just wondering if you can touch even more on how important
it is that we invest in our infrastructure, our roads, our
bridges, and our locks and dams for our farmers, and how badly
they need that investment when they are getting, you know,
squeezed on all ends right now because of the retaliatory
effects that we are seeing in States like ours because of the
trade war that was started over a year ago, and just how
important it is that we get that done.
Mrs. Bustos. Well, the--most of the barge--is it OK if I go
ahead and answer this, Mr. Chairman?
The--most of the barge traffic that we have in our area,
Abby, that you--that we can see every single day that we are at
home--although flooding, by the way, is out of control right
now--there was--two levees broke in Davenport, Iowa, just
yesterday, so we have got a big problem there.
But most of those barges are carrying corn and beans. So it
is one of the most efficient, if not the most efficient way to
carry our corn and our beans to market. So it is critical. And
how our family farmers get to the barges through our rural
roads and our bridges, again, absolutely critical.
We hear the stories--and I know you do, as well,
Congresswoman--of farmers who have to take the long route
because the bridge is out. All of this is just absolutely
critical to keeping down the costs that our families have to
spend on their food supply.
So again, I--you know, your district is mostly rural, my
district is mostly rural. And that is why I just wanted to make
sure that we drew attention to this today. Thank you for your
question.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady. Any other Members have
questions?
OK, with that, thank you for your testimony.
Mrs. Bustos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
Mr. DeFazio. And I believe that Mikie Sherrill from New
Jersey was next up.
Go right ahead, you have 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. MIKIE SHERRILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Ms. Sherrill. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chairman
DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the committee
for the opportunity to testify today. I want to particularly
recognize my New Jersey colleagues, Representative Sires,
Representative Payne, and Representative Malinowski, who work
so hard to advance New Jersey's priorities as members of this
committee.
I was glad to see yesterday that the President and Speaker
Pelosi met to talk about infrastructure, and agreed to move
forward on a $2 trillion infrastructure package. A couple of
weeks ago I had the opportunity to convey to the Speaker how
important the Gateway Tunnel project is, in particular, and
that is why I am here today.
In fact, a good starting point for this administration
would be to release the funds already appropriated to the
Gateway Tunnel Project so we can immediately get started on
this critical priority, because the Gateway Tunnel Project is
the Nation's most urgent infrastructure project.
As the members of this committee know all too well, 20,000
commuters use the century-old Hudson River Tunnel to travel in
and out of New York City each day. It is the linchpin of the
passenger rail network, and the most heavily trafficked rail
corridor, connecting train routes in 20 States.
Superstorm Sandy badly damaged the existing tunnel. I
examined the damage a few months ago. The brackish water that
tore through the tunnel has left behind exposed rebar, corroded
wires, and crumbling walls. Maintenance crews are only able to
do basic upkeep, because they can only operate a few hours a
night, hauling their equipment in and out of the tunnel for
each triage session.
I know the committee has focused on the cost of doing
nothing. Well, the cost of doing nothing to address this poor
condition is staggering. A complete collapse of the tunnel
could injure thousands and cost our economy an estimated $100
million a day.
I recently hosted a discussion with the Regional Plan
Association on their new report on the Hudson River Tunnel. A
planned closure of half the tunnel would be a $16 billion hit
to the national economy over 4 years, and a $22 billion hit to
residential property values in New Jersey alone. Rising air
fares, more pollution, longer commutes, and increased motor
vehicle accidents will further harm the single most
economically productive region in our country.
Just as important to my constituents, every deferred
decision on the Gateway Tunnel Project means mounting delays.
It seems as though every few months we read about a train
stopped in the tunnel. Or, in October of 2018, overhead power
cables puncturing the top of a train car, stranding 1,600
commuters.
As a working parent, I know the stress of a delayed train
when you are racing to pick up your kids at daycare, or make it
home to watch a lacrosse game. I am on text chains with moms in
my communities who have been stranded, feverishly working to
find someone to pick up their kids.
Ryan Coakley, a regular commuter from Montclair, New Jersey
described his commute as ``a picture of inefficiency.'' Packed
trains, constant delays, and a stressful commute. He said that,
in order to coach his kid's team, he has to take a half of a
day off from work because he can never depend on the trains
being on time.
Or Michael Preston, who has commuted into the city from
Madison for 15 years. He compared riding the train to ``death
by a thousand cuts.'' He now leaves two trains earlier than
years before, because he knows if he needs to be at a meeting
on time, he just can't count on the system to get him there.
We are also approaching a new crisis with a shortage of
train engineers for New Jersey Transit. This workforce gap
leaves our transit system operating well below capacity going
into the busy summer months. In fact, it has already been
dubbed a summer of hell.
We are better than this. There is no reason for transit
agencies to struggle to maintain the workforce to keep the
trains running on time. I look forward to working with this
committee to explore how the Federal Transit Administration can
provide greater assistance for recruiting and training to fix
these workforce shortages.
Although I was proud to partner with members of this
committee to advocate for funding the Federal-State Partnership
for a State of Good Repair, that is not enough. We must go
beyond that and create a dedicated funding source for passenger
rail projects, and provide Amtrak contracting authority to
advance the work that we all know needs to be done.
New Jersey sends more money to Washington in Federal tax
dollars and gets back less than almost any State in the Nation.
My constituents do not feel Congress is working for them,
because commonsense things like this tunnel, or rail
maintenance, are put on ice because of partisan politics.
Nothing affects people's lives who go in and out of New
York more than their daily commute. It is unavoidable, and it
has to be done every day. We owe the hard-working men and women
of our region a safe, reliable commute home. We have a
tremendous opportunity to greenlight the funding for the new
tunnel.
I look forward to joining you, Chairman DeFazio, and
members of this committee on Thursday and Friday to tour the
Hudson River Tunnel and move forward on Gateway. We owe the
American people no less. Thanks so much.
[Ms. Sherrill's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mikie Sherrill, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey
Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of
the Committee for the opportunity to testify today. I want to
particularly recognize my New Jersey colleagues, Rep. Sires, Rep.
Payne, and Rep. Malinowski, who work so hard to advance New Jersey's
priorities as members of this committee.
I'm glad to see yesterday the President and Speaker Pelosi met to
talk about infrastructure, and agreed on moving forward on a $2
trillion infrastructure package. A couple of weeks ago I had the
opportunity to convey to the Speaker how important the Gateway Tunnel
project is in particular, and that's why I'm here today.
In fact, a good starting point for the administration would be to
release the funds already appropriated to the Gateway Tunnel Project so
we can immediately get started on this critical priority.
The Gateway Tunnel Project is the nation's most urgent
infrastructure project.
As the members from New Jersey and New York on the committee know
all too well, 20,000 commuters use the century-old Hudson River Tunnel
to travel in and out of New York each day. It is the linchpin of the
passenger rail network: the most heavily-trafficked rail corridor,
connecting train routes in 20 states.
Superstorm Sandy badly damaged the existing tunnel. I toured the
damage a few months ago--the brackish water that tore through the
tunnel has left behind exposed rebar, corroded wires, and crumbling
walls. Maintenance crews--and I must emphasize maintenance, because
they are unable to do more than basic upkeep--can only operate for a
few hours a night, hauling their equipment in and out of the tunnel for
each triage session.
I know the committee has focused on the cost of doing nothing to
invest in our crumbling infrastructure. Well, the cost of doing nothing
to address the poor condition of the current tunnel is staggering.
A complete collapse of the tunnel could injure thousands and cost
our economy an estimated $100 million a day.
I recently hosted a discussion with the Regional Plan Association
on their new report on the Hudson River Tunnel. A planned closure of
half the tunnel would be a $16 billion hit to the national economy over
four years. A $22 billion hit to residential property values in New
Jersey. Rising air fares, more pollution, longer commutes, and
increased motor vehicle accidents will further harm the single most
economically productive region in our country.
Just as important to my constituents, every deferred decision on
the Gateway Project means mounting delays on the current system. It
seems as though every few months, we read about a train stopped in the
tunnel--or in one case in October 2018, overhead power cables
puncturing the top of a train car, stranding 1,600 commuters.
As a working parent, I know the stress of a delayed train when you
are racing to pick up your kids at daycare, or make it home to watch a
lacrosse game. I am on text chains with moms in my community who have
been stranded, feverishly working to find someone to pick up their
kids.
Ryan Coakley, a regular commuter from Montclair, described his
commute as ``a picture of inefficiency.'' Packed trains, constant
delays, and a stressful commute for folks who already have stressful
jobs. He said that in order to coach his kid's team, he has to take a
half day from work because he can never depend on trains being on time.
Or Michael Preston, who has commuted into the city from Madison for
15 years. He compared riding the train to ``death by a thousand cuts.''
He now leaves two trains earlier than years before, because he knows if
he needs to be to a meeting on time, he just can't count on the system
to get him there.
We are also approaching a new crisis with a shortage of train
engineers for NJ Transit. The eight locomotive engineers graduating
from training this May are not enough to fill the shortage we face.
This workforce gap leaves our transit system operating well below
capacity going into the busy summer months. In fact, it's already been
dubbed ``Another Summer of Hell.''
We are better than this. There's no reason for transit agencies to
struggle to maintain the workforce to keep the trains running on time.
I look forward to working with this committee to help explore how the
Federal Transit Administration can provide greater assistance for
recruiting and training to fix these workforce shortages.
And if we truly want to build a 21st century infrastructure, we
have to partner with Amtrak to reduce the backlog of projects along the
Northeast Corridor. The greatest barrier to a strong passenger rail
national network is the lack of investment. That is why I was proud to
partner with members of this Committee to advocate for funding the
Federal-State Partnership for a State of Good Repair.
But that's not enough. We must go beyond that and create a
dedicated funding source for passenger rail projects and provide Amtrak
contracting authority to advance the work that we all know needs to be
done.
New Jersey sends more money to Washington in federal tax dollars,
and gets back less, than almost any other state. My constituents do not
feel Congress is working for them, because common sense things like
this tunnel, or rail maintenance, are put on ice because of partisan
politics.
Nothing affects people's lives who go in and out of New York more
than their commute. It is unavoidable, it must be done every day. We
owe the hard working men and women of our region a safe, reliable
commute home.
We have a tremendous opportunity to greenlight the funding for the
new tunnel. I look forward to joining you, Chairman DeFazio, and
members of this committee on Thursday and Friday to tour the Hudson
River Tunnel and move forward on Gateway. We owe the American people no
less.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. That was precisely timed. Very
good.
I thank the gentlelady, and I think you pointed out both
the problem with the tunnels, but also the power and the
transit vehicles themselves. And part of the reason transit
ridership is lessening in many places is because of the
decrepit condition of that.
And so, $100 billion that will bring our transit up to a
state of good repair, nationally, that is worth the investment.
And then also for pointing out if we wait until those
tunnels fail, $37 billion-a-year hit to the economy of the
United States, all the United States, not just New Jersey, New
York, or even the Northeast region.
So thank you for your advocacy. I look forward to the tour.
We will be going down there at 10 o'clock at night. It ought to
be lots of fun, I am sure.
Ms. Sherrill. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. So any other members of the committee have
questions?
OK, hearing none, thank you very much for your testimony--
--
Ms. Sherrill. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio [continuing]. And your advocacy.
And with that, the gentleman from California, Josh Harder,
is recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOSH HARDER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Harder. Thank you so much, Chairman DeFazio and Ranking
Member Graves, for taking the time to hold this very important
hearing.
I have the honor of representing California's Central
Valley here in Congress. And so, unsurprisingly, I am here to
talk about water. Back home, our water infrastructure is about
more than just sustaining the practical drinking needs of our
community.
My great-great-grandfather came out on a wagon train in
1850. He settled in the Central Valley because, at the time, we
had the best soil and, most importantly, the best water in the
country.
That is the key to our livelihoods and to our entire
agricultural way of life. Our region's access to water allows
us to deliver over half of America's fruits, nuts, and
vegetables. But our water infrastructure is aging and hasn't
kept pace with the growing population in the agricultural
industry, let alone the impacts of climate change, which are
exacerbating the droughts and the boom and bust cycles we have.
This is a national and local priority, and we need some
real smart investments here. On the heels of California's worst
drought, we have an obligation to move quickly to invest, to
prepare for the one that we know is just around the corner.
California already has the most variable rainfall in the
country. We are locked into this boom and bust cycle. We have
to capitalize on the boom years, like this one, where we have a
lot of rain and a lot of water, to get us through the busts,
which we know always happen. The only way we can do that is if
we actually invest in infrastructure projects.
In the past we have failed to take advantage of these, and
we have suffered. We should have made investments into our
water systems 20 years ago, but the best thing we could be
doing is making those investments today.
In 2012, the American Society of Civil Engineers graded the
State's levee and flood control a D, and the urban runoff
infrastructure and programs a D+. It is not the grades we are
looking for. And these ratings are--I think are really
unacceptable and unsustainable in an area of the country like
ours, that has some real challenges.
As a committee, you have recognized that the Federal
Government used to pay 75 percent of the total project costs
for water infrastructure improvements. And today the Federal
Government pays about 5 percent. I think we can agree that that
is a dereliction of duty.
That is why I announced the SAVE Water Resources Act just
last week. This bill invests in water infrastructure, supports
surface and groundwater storage below ground, and ensures we
build infrastructure that lasts more than a few years down the
road, but for the long term. We need to make sure we are
ensuring the water security of our region 50, 100 years into
the future.
Some parts of this bill increase funding for or reauthorize
key programs that we should prioritize as we are considering a
new infrastructure package. My Central Valley colleagues agree.
I led a letter with five other California Central Valley
Members on addressing the need to do a couple things.
First, to encourage the development of climate-resilient
technologies that can withstand the impacts of severe droughts,
floods, and wildfires that are now stretching 365 days a year.
It also supports many of the water infrastructure projects
authorized in the WIIN Act, including much-needed surface and
groundwater storage projects, water recycling projects, and
desalination.
And third, it invests in programs that support the
development, management, and improvement of water projects,
like the U.S. Army Corps ]of Engineers Civil Works program.
It expands Federal financing for new water projects by
authorizing and expanding the Water Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act and the Reclamation Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act, known as WIFIA and RIFIA.
And then it finally funds Federal programs that provide
States with the financial support to encourage water
infrastructure projects that improve water quality, like the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and Clean Water State
Revolving Fund.
We have kids in the California Central Valley, in my
district who have rashes if they go and try to take a shower
with the drinking water that we have. The rural water--the
Clean Water Drinking Act has expired. That is exactly what we
need to be reauthorizing. We do that in my bill.
If we commit to making these investments, we are going to
protect not only the local needs of our valley, but the
country's access to healthy, home-grown food. It is not just a
priority for us, it is a priority for anyone who eats dinner or
breakfast anywhere in the country.
I encourage this committee to prioritize investments in our
failing water systems, alongside our need to invest in our
roads, bridges, and transit systems, and I look forward to
continue to work alongside you to develop the best
infrastructure program we can for the people I have an honor of
representing in the Central Valley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back and open for any
questions.
[Mr. Harder's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Josh Harder, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
Thank you Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves for taking the
time to hold this important hearing.
I have the honor of representing California's Central Valley here
in Congress.
Back home, our water infrastructure is about more than just
sustaining the practical drinking water needs of our own community.
It's also a key to our livelihoods and our agricultural way of
life.
Our region's access to water allows us to deliver over half of
America's fruits, nuts, and vegetables.
But our water infrastructure is aging and has not kept pace with
our growing population and agricultural industry--or our changing
climate.
This is a public safety concern for the farmers, families, and
water users across the state, and it's a concern for anyone across the
country who eats our produce.
This is a local and a national priority--and California's unique
challenges require smart investments.
On the heels of the worst drought in our state's history, we have
an obligation to move quickly to invest in our water infrastructure to
prepare for the next one.
California has the most variable rainfall in the country--we're
locked into boom and bust cycles.
We have to capitalize on the boom years--like we're experiencing
now--to get us through the busts. The only way we can do that is by
investing in important infrastructure projects.
In the past, we've failed to take advantage of the boom years, and
we suffered during the last drought as a result.
We should have made investments in our water systems 20 years ago--
but the least we can do is make those investments right now.
In 2012, the American Society of Civil Engineers graded the state's
levee and flood control a D, and urban runoff infrastructure and
programs a D+. These ratings are unacceptable and unsustainable.
And as you said before Mr. Chairman, the federal government's
investments in infrastructure have not kept pace with our needs.
The federal government used to pay 75% of total project costs for
water infrastructure improvements. Today we pay around 5%. That's
crazy.
That's why I announced the SAVE Water Resources Act just last week.
My bill invests in water infrastructure, supports surface and
groundwater storage, and ensures we build infrastructure lasts more
than a few years down the road, but for the long-term.
Some parts of the bill increase funding for--or reauthorize--key
programs that we should prioritize as we consider a new infrastructure
package.
My Central Valley colleagues agree--I led a letter with five other
Central Valley Members on addressing the need to:
Encourage the development of climate-resilient
technologies that can withstand the impacts of severe droughts, floods,
and wildfires.
Support MANY water infrastructure projects authorized in
the WIIN Act, including much-needed surface and groundwater storage
projects, water recycling projects, and desalination projects.
Invest in programs that support the development,
management, and improvement of water projects, such as the U.S. Army
Corp of Engineers Civil Works program.
Expand federal financing for new water projects by
authorizing and expanding the Water Infrastructure Financing and
Innovation Act (WIFIA) and the Reclamation Infrastructure Financing and
Innovation Act (RIFIA).
Funding federal programs that provide states with the
financial support to encourage water infrastructure projects and
projects that improve water quality standards, such as the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) and Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(SRF).
If we commit to making these investments, we will protect not only
the local needs of the Central Valley, but also our country's access to
healthy, home-grown food.
As our national population continues to expand, we need to continue
growing food here at home.
I know most people can't see beyond their dinner plates, but their
food comes from places like the Central Valley. No issue is more
central to our ability to grow this produce at home than our access to
water.
And we can't maintain this access without making important
infrastructure investments in our water systems.
I encourage you to prioritize investments in our failing water
systems alongside our need to invest in America's roads, bridges, and
transit systems by making investments in the programs which I have laid
out here today.
I hope to continue working alongside you to develop a better
infrastructure package for the people I have the honor of representing
in the Central Valley.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for his
legislative contribution to the debate and discussion over how
the Federal Government can better partner in water. And
obviously, you have a strong ally in the chair of the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment in the
gentlelady from Los Angeles, who is not here today, but you
know Grace Napolitano very well, and she will be a key as we
move forward.
And also, having served on the Committee on Natural
Resources, I am more familiar with over 30 years' water wars,
as I call them. But if you can all come to some agreement----
Mr. Harder. It is time to get beyond the wars and into the
solutions.
Mr. DeFazio. That would be great.
Any other members of the committee have questions?
OK, seeing none, I thank the gentleman for his
contribution.
Mr. Harder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. The gentleman, Glenn Thompson from
Pennsylvania, is next to arrive. I recognize the gentleman for
5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Thompson. Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity and the
privilege of being able to share my priorities for the 116th
Congress.
In order to improve and maintain the infrastructure of the
United States, it is crucial that we support programs that
promote new, innovative technologies that advance all the
aspects of our country's transportation and infrastructure
needs.
I want to start with the Essential Air Service. The Airline
Deregulation Act of 1978 made airlines the sole authority to
determine which domestic markets would receive air service, as
well as what airfares passengers would be charged.
Subsequently, the Essential Air Service was established to
ensure taxpayers in small, rural communities had continued
connectivity to the entire national transportation system by
subsidizing commuter and certified air carriers.
This program is critical in rural America and has provided
links to hub airports in over 175 locations throughout the
United States and its territories that would otherwise lack
commercial air service.
Our Nation's rural and small communities depend on
commercial air service for transportation, medical supplies,
commercial supplies, access to larger business markets, and,
quite frankly, economic development.
With rural airports located in my congressional district,
including four airports that participate in the EAS program, I
see firsthand the importance of maintaining this program for
all Americans who live in underserved rural areas.
I want to touch on the Bus Testing Facility Program. The
Bus Testing Facility Program, which is operated by the Thomas
D. Larson Pennsylvania Transportation Institute, an
interdisciplinary research unit of the Pennsylvania State
University, tests new transit bus models for safety, structural
integrity, durability, reliability, performance,
maintainability, noise, and fuel economy. The program tests new
bus models before they are purchased by transit agencies. This
often helps address problems before the fleet is built,
potentially saving considerable money and time, and avoiding
inconveniencing passengers and communities.
Since the beginning of this program, more than 470 new bus
models have been tested, resulting in over 9,600 documented
design failures. By identifying these failures early in the
production process, the program averted many fleet failures,
saving millions of dollars in maintenance costs, litigation,
and lost revenue.
The Bus Testing Facility Program originally received $3
million in mandatory funds under the SAFETEA-LU. In fiscal year
2018, Congress provided an additional $2 million discretionary
appropriations in the Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development Appropriations bill. This is the first increase
that program received in 20 years.
Now, based on fiscal year 2018 funding and an anticipated
$3 million in fiscal year 2019 and $3 million in 2020, the Bus
Testing Facility Program has sufficient funds through September
2020.
As we look forward to reauthorizing a highway bill, I
request the committee take a close look at this program that
has a proven record of high-quality success and reporting.
Without this program, manufacturers will not be able to sell
new buses. Transit agencies will not be able to acquire new
buses. And the consumers will be left with fewer options for
transportation.
I want to touch briefly on locks and dams that has been
discussed here. You know, specifically in my area, in the Upper
Allegheny River, we sadly need action on maintenance,
maintenance of locks and dams, and certainly more dredging to
benefit both commercial and noncommercial riverway traffic. It
is sad, the condition of those--been allowed to deteriorate to.
Any support that this committee can provide for navigation of
our locks and dams would--and our riverways would be
appreciated.
And finally, workforce development infrastructure.
Rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure will require more than
just bridges, roads, and waterways. It will require the
development of a skilled workforce that can design, build, and
maintain that infrastructure. And as cochair of the bipartisan
House Career and Technical Education Caucus, I recognize the
importance and value CTE programs offer to individuals,
especially those in infrastructure sectors.
CTE programs and apprenticeships are proven strategies that
can help provide individuals with the education and work-based
learning needed for career success in these high-skill, high-
wage industry sectors or occupations.
Therefore, I just would respectfully request that you
include the following in any infrastructure legislation: a
stipulation that States devote a portion of infrastructure
funds they receive to workforce development programs, including
CTE programs, with the flexibility to invest in such programs
that they deem appropriate for local infrastructure needs; and
incentives for infrastructure-related businesses to invest in
work-based learning, including apprenticeships and programs.
I really, once again, appreciate the honor and the
privilege of sitting before you today. Thank you, Chairman.
[Mr. Thompson's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
Good morning and thank you for providing the opportunity to share
my priorities for the 116th Congress. In order to improve and maintain
the infrastructure of the United States, it is crucial we support
programs that promote new, innovative technologies that advance all
aspects of our country's transportation needs.
Essential Air Service
The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 made airlines the sole
authority to determine which domestic markets would receive air service
as well as what airfares passengers would be charged. Subsequently, the
Essential Air Service (EAS) Program was established to ensure taxpayers
in small, rural communities had continued connectivity to the entire
National Transportation System by subsidizing commuter and certified
air carriers.
This program is critical in rural America and has provided links to
hub airports at over 175 locations throughout the United States and its
territories that would otherwise lack commercial air service.
Our nation's rural and small communities depend on commercial air
service for transportation, medical supplies, commercial goods, and
access to larger business markets. By continuing regular air service to
these areas, Americans will continue to access necessary medical
services that might only be available in larger cities, as well as
increasing the economic opportunities and visitors to these
communities.
With rural airports located in my congressional district, including
four (4) airports that participate in the EAS program, I see first-hand
the importance of maintaining this program for all Americans who live
in underserved, rural areas.
Bus Testing Facility Program
As part of authorization of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU),
the Bus Testing Facility Program, operated by the Thomas D. Larson
Pennsylvania Transportation Institute, an interdisciplinary research
unit of the Pennsylvania State University, tests new transit bus models
for safety, structural integrity and durability, reliability,
performance, maintainability, noise, and fuel economy.
The program tests new bus models before they are purchased by
transit agencies. This often helps address problems before the fleet is
built, potentially saving considerable money and time and avoiding
inconveniencing passengers.
Since the beginning of this program, more than 470 new bus models
have been tested, resulting in over 9,600 documented design failures.
In 2017 alone, the bus testing facility identified 183 deficiencies,
including 55 structural, 19 road calls, and two severe safety related
failures. By identifying these failures early in the production
process, the program averted many fleet failures saving millions of
dollars in maintenance costs, litigation, and lost revenue.
The Bus Testing Facility program originally received $3 million in
mandatory funds from SAFETEA-LU. In FY 2018, Congress provided an
additional $2 million discretionary appropriation in the
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill. This
is the first increase the program received in 20 years. Based on FY
2018 funding and anticipated $3 million in FY 2019 and $3 million in FY
2020, the Bus Testing Facility program has sufficient funds through
September 2020.
As we look toward reauthorizing a highway bill, I request the
Committee take a close look at this program that has a proven record of
high-quality success and reporting. Without this program, manufacturers
will not be able to sell new buses, and transit agencies will not be
able to acquire new buses.
Workforce Development in Infrastructure
Rebuilding our nation's infrastructure will require more than just
bridges, roads, and waterways; it will require the development of a
skilled workforce that can design, build, and maintain that
infrastructure. On March 6, 2018, during a House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee hearing on the President's infrastructure
proposal, Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao testified, ``we
probably will not have enough skilled trades workers to be able to
address all the infrastructure needs when it finally gets all going . .
. So, the workforce training and retraining part is important.''
Career and Technical education (CTE) programs and apprenticeships
are proven strategies that can provide individuals with the education
and work-based learning needed for career success in these high-skill,
high-wage industry sectors or occupations. As Co-Chair of the
bipartisan House Career and Technical Education Caucus, I recognize the
importance and value CTE programs offer to individuals, especially
those in infrastructure sectors.
By including these investments in a comprehensive infrastructure
package, we will ensure that resources committed to our nation's
infrastructure will be effective, building on established workforce
development strategies to provide the skilled workers required to carry
out the projects.
Congress recently recognized CTE as an effective workforce
development strategy when it unanimously passed the Strengthening
Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act reauthorizing
the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, which the
President subsequently signed into law (Public Law No: 115-224). We
must maintain this commitment moving forward. Therefore, I respectfully
request that you include the following in any infrastructure
legislation:
A stipulation that states devote a portion of the
infrastructure funds they receive to workforce development programs,
including CTE programs, with the flexibility to invest in such programs
they deem appropriate for local infrastructure needs, and that they
coordinate such investments with the agencies that receive the states'
funds from the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and Carl D.
Perkins CTE Act so as not to duplicate efforts;
Incentives for infrastructure-related businesses that
invest in work-based learning, including apprenticeship programs; and
Dedicated resources for updating the facilities and
equipment used in CTE programs of study in infrastructure sectors to
ensure they are aligned with fast-paced, ever-changing industry
expectations and standards.
Again, thank you to Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and
Members of this Committee for allowing me to express my priorities for
this Committee in the 116th Congress. I appreciate your consideration
and look forward to working together on these and other issues.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. In particular, I am
supportive of the EAS program. I think we have a little work to
do downtown at the White House on that issue, but it is
critical. I don't currently have any in my district, but we
have had some in my State. And they have been successful,
actually, over the years.
And the bus testing facility is obviously a great asset,
and we will certainly be looking at that when we go into the
surface bill.
And we heard earlier about inland waterways. And again, we
understand that we are living off some stuff that is more than
100 years old in places, and it can't last forever. So I
appreciate your testimony.
Anyone else have questions for the gentleman?
Seeing none, I thank you for your testimony. And next in
order of arrival is the Honorable Ilhan Omar from Minnesota.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ILHAN OMAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Ms. Omar. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member
Graves, and to the entire committee for giving me the chance to
join you today to share my perspective on the vital issues that
are under your jurisdiction, and particularly the
infrastructure needs of my district.
For most people, the word ``infrastructure'' invokes the
image of roads and bridges. But it is so much more than that.
It is the public transit system taking people to work every
day, the pipes delivering safe drinking water to our homes. It
is the power grid keeping the lights on in this very room, and
the broadband access that gives us the ability to connect with
people without even stepping out of our front door, not to
mention it is the means to fight the climate catastrophes
currently threatening our future.
And the role infrastructure plays in our lives is as broad
as the definition of the word in itself. It isn't simply a
means to get us from a point A to point P. It is a lifeline of
community connection and the impact on quality of life of every
living person in the United States. Because how can you count
on an ambulance making it on time to save your life during an
emergency if you can't count on the roads being drivable?
How can your child be expected to succeed if they don't
have access to internet to be able to do their homework?
And I ask how can we build a metaphoric bridge between
diverse communities in our country if we aren't able to build
little bridges connecting them?
America has a long history of building some of the most
impressive infrastructure systems in the world, and investing
in these vital networks is part of what makes this country
exceptional. But unfortunately, we are beginning to fall
behind. Since 2010 China has spent roughly 8 percent of its GDP
on infrastructure. And, on average, European countries spend an
equivalent of 5 percent of GDP. But the United States
investment has hovered over 2.4 percent. And we have been
putting off the backlog of maintenance needs which are
estimated at $2 trillion.
The effects of that diminishing investment can be seen in
communities all over the country. If you were to travel to the
district I represent--I certainly invite each one of you to do
that--you will see an illustration of an infrastructure need
everywhere you look.
Twelve years ago today the I-35 Mississippi Bridge in my
home district of Minneapolis fully collapsed in the middle of
busy rush hour. Thirteen people lost their lives and 100 people
were injured. More than a decade later, experts agree that we
have not addressed the infrastructure crisis.
But you won't just see the examples, you will hear about
them, because the need for infrastructure investment and
improvement is on the minds of everyone living in our
community. In fact, since being elected in just a month, I have
not had a single conversation with a mayor or a local elected
official in my district who didn't raise the concerns for
public transportation as being their pressing need.
Right now there is a strong public push for an investment
in projects in Minneapolis, the light rail system that would
extend the blue line, adding 11 stops that would further
connect the city with the surrounding areas. For my district, a
project like this is one that is about more than commutes or
train space. It is about choice and opportunity.
Expanding public transit options gives my constituents the
chance to move out to areas that might have more affordable
housing. It means that a coffee shop in Brooklyn Park could
attract more customers during their commute and consequently
hire more staff. It means that seniors who might struggle to
get around will have more options for visiting their loved ones
or traveling to a doctor's office.
So I encourage this committee to focus on smart solutions
and develop a future-focused strategy. I am happy to extend an
invitation to all the members of this committee to visit
Minnesota's Fifth Congressional District and take stock of the
many projects we are working on. We speak for most of Americans
in welcoming a robust investment in local infrastructure.
Please consider my invitation, and thank you again for
convening us and having this very critical conversation about
much-needed investment in infrastructure around the country.
[Ms. Omar's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ilhan Omar, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Minnesota
Thank you Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves, and to the
entire Committee for giving me the chance to join you today to share my
perspective on the vital issues that fall under your jurisdiction and
particularly the infrastructure needs of my district.
For most people, the word infrastructure invokes the image of roads
and bridges. But it's so much more than that. It's the public transit
systems taking people to work every day and the pipes delivering safe
drinking water to our homes. It's the power grid keeping the lights on
in this very room and the broadband access that gives us the ability to
connect with the entire world without even stepping out of our front
door. Not to mention, it's a means to fight the climate catastrophe
currently threatening our future.
And the role infrastructure plays in our lives is as broad as the
definition of the word itself. It isn't simply a means to get us from
Point A to Point B. It's the lifeline of community connectiveness and
it impacts the quality of life of every last person living in the
United States. Because how can you count on an ambulance making it to
you in time to save your life during an emergency if the road to your
home is undrivable? How can a child be expected to succeed if they
don't have access the internet to do their homework? And I ask, how can
we build metaphorical bridges between the diverse communities in our
country if there aren't literal bridges connecting them?
America has a long history of building some of the most impressive
infrastructure systems in the world and investing in these vital
networks is part of what makes this country exceptional. But
unfortunately, we're beginning to fall behind. Since 2010, China has
spent roughly eight percent of its GDP on infrastructure \1\ and on
average, European countries spend the equivalent of 5 percent of
GDP.\2\ But here in the U.S., our investment is hovering around 2.4
percent. And we've been putting off a backlog of maintenance needs
estimated at around $2 trillion.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Council on Foreign Relations, To Boost Flagging Growth, China
Doubles Down on Its Least Productive Sector; January 14, 2019
\2\ Council on Foreign Relations, The State of U.S. Infrastructure;
January 12, 2018
\3\ American Society of Civil Engineers, Economic Impact Analysis;
2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The effects of that diminishing investment can be seen in
communities all over the country, and if you were to travel to the
district I represent--which I'd certainly invite each one of you to
do--you'll see an illustration of the infrastructure needs everywhere
you look. Twelve years ago, the I-35 Mississippi bridge in my home
district in Minneapolis fully collapsed in the middle of a busy rush
hour. Thirteen people lost their lives and over 100 more were injured.
More than a decade later, experts agree we have not addressed our
infrastructure crisis.
But you won't just see the examples, you'll hear about them too.
Because need for infrastructure investment and improvement is on the
minds of everyone living in these communities. In fact, since being
elected a few short months ago, I don't think I've had a single
conversation with a mayor or local official in my district who didn't
raise public transportation as one of their most pressing concerns.
Right now, there's a strong public push for an improvement project to
the Minneapolis light-rail system that would extend the Blue Line,
adding 11 stops that would further connect the city with the
surrounding areas. For my district, a project like this one is about
more than commute times and train space--it's about choice and
opportunity. Expanding public transit options gives my constituents the
chance to move out to areas that may have more affordable housing. It
means that a coffee shop in Brooklyn Park could attract more customers
during their commute and consequently hire more staff. It means that
seniors who may struggle to get around will have more options for
visiting their loved-ones or traveling to the doctor's office.
But the community would start to see benefits from a project like
the Blue Line extension long before those additional stops are even up
and operating. A federal investment in the project would mean
construction could begin and workers could be hired, adding good union
jobs to the economy. It would allow the community to start drawing up
detailed plans that build up the resiliency of the network and improve
the health of the environment. Because by choosing to invest in smart
public transit options, like the Blue Line extension, the government is
helping to cutdown on roadway congestion and ease our reliance on
fossil fuels. Unless our national infrastructure strategy is one that
helps cut down on emissions and strengthen the ability of our network
to withstand natural disasters, then we'd only be shortchanging
ourselves--we'd be setting ourselves up for another round of emergency
rebuilds that we can't afford and adding to the already mounting costs
that congestion and climate change are racking up for our economy and
for future generations.
I encourage this Committee to focus on smart solutions and develop
a future-focused strategy as you continue working on the national
infrastructure package that we so desperately need. That package must
take into account more than just the map of roads currently in need of
repair, but instead focus on creating a roadmap for the future--a
roadmap that prioritizes the right kind of projects, that creates well-
paying jobs and that helps communities stay truly connected.
I'm happy to extend an invitation to all Members of this Committee
to visit us in the Minnesota 5th and take stock of the many projects we
are working on, as well as speak to some of the many Americans who
would so welcome robust federal investment in their local
infrastructure. Please consider yourself welcome any time. We'd be
happy to show you the same hospitality you've shown me as a guest in
this Committee today.
Thank you again Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member for allowing me
to join you today.
Mr. DeFazio. Great, I thank the gentlelady, particularly
for tying together everything from broadband to public transit.
What you did is you knit it together in a way that shows the
interdependence and how we have a lot of investments to make.
And also, I go around giving speeches about the pathetic
efforts we are making nationally, compared--I mean, I used to
say we were becoming Third World. And our colleague, Earl
Blumenauer, said to me that it was insulting. I said, ``Well,
you know how bad it is?''
He said, ``No, insulting to Third World countries. They are
investing a higher percentage of their GDP than we are in
transportation infrastructure.'' So I really appreciate your
emphasizing that point.
So I thank the gentlelady. Does anyone have questions?
OK, all right. With that, I thank you for your testimony. I
appreciate it.
Ms. Omar. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. The next arrival would be the Honorable Mike
Quigley from Illinois.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. DeFazio. Five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. MIKE QUIGLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
ranking member and the members of the committee for having me
today.
It is interesting. This morning the Union Station in
Chicago is closed. There is concrete falling from the roof onto
the tracks. It is an indication of the broader issues our
country has, a backlog of infrastructure needs. And as the Vice
Chairman of the THUD Appropriations Subcommittee, I recognize,
as you do, that it is so important for us--THUD and
Transportation and Infrastructure--to work together on all of
these needs.
And as I sit here and listen to others talk about this, I
think what is important is that I should care just as much
about the tunnel in New Jersey as they should about me
rebuilding the blue line in Chicago as I should care about the
locks on the Mississippi and water mains and the water issues
in California.
And as we talk about a big infrastructure plan I think we
need to keep in mind that this isn't a parochial what's-in-my-
district first. Obviously, my colleague and friend, Pete
Visclosky, wants to double-track the South Shore Line into
Indiana. That would help the entire region, and would help the
environment, and help the economy. So I think, if we have that
spirit, we will do well.
A couple points. I would like to speak about the Federal
Bird-Safe Buildings Act, which is in this committee. I have
introduced a version of this bill in every Congress I have been
a Member of, because I believe that we have a responsibility to
be good stewards of the world we live in. Up to 1 billion birds
die from colliding into buildings every year, a very
preventable problem.
The cost-negligible, bipartisan Bird-Safe Buildings Act
requires that public buildings constructed, acquired, or
significantly altered by GSA incorporate bird-safe building
materials and design features. It is an important bill for
several reasons.
First, birds have an intrinsic cultural and ecological
value. It is our responsibility to be good stewards of the
environment and reduce the harmful impacts of our society on
the natural world. Additionally, birds help generate billions
of dollars annually to the U.S. economy through wildlife
watching activities. One in five Americans, 48 million people,
engage in bird watching, and they spend about $36 billion in
pursuit of bird activities every year. These activities support
over 600,000 jobs and bring $6.2 billion in State tax revenues.
For all these reasons, it is vital that we take this
simple, straightforward, and low-cost step in this bill to
protect birds from fatal collisions.
This bill has been referred to Chairwoman Titus'
subcommittee, and I thank her for her support on this.
I would also like to talk about something that is an issue
for every city in the country, and Chicago is no exception:
funding for public transportation. Effective public transit
makes cities more livable and accessible for all its
inhabitants. Transit-oriented development can turn wasted or
unused land into vibrant communities and allow existing
communities to access economic and social opportunities that
otherwise might be difficult.
For too long public transit has been underserved by
Congress, and I will be glad to work with you and Chairman
Price and my colleagues to ensure that adequate funding is
provided for transit systems this year.
In all of its work this Congress, I urge this committee to
consider public transit needs, and specifically to clarify for
the Secretary of Transportation that key Federal programs like
TIFIA and RRIF should not be included as part of the Federal
share of the budget--of a project as part of the Capital
Investment Grant Program. Chicagoland agencies like RTA are
working hard to ensure our infrastructure continues to meet the
needs of citizens, and shoring up the Highway Trust Fund and
addressing the capital construction backlog are key to
achieving this goal.
Finally, I want to touch on the issue of flooding, which is
serious in Chicago and communities around the country. Today I
reintroduced the Flood Mapping Modernization and Homeowner
Empowerment Pilot Program Act, which will create a 12-city
pilot program and give communities the resources they need to
address urban flooding within their local contexts, while also
helping FEMA glean new best practices to help improve flood
mapping and mitigation.
I encourage the committee to take up and pass that bill,
because there is also room for additional pre-disaster work to
address flooding. A pre-disaster infrastructure program as part
of FHWA is one possible approach to safeguard the Nation's
vital transportation systems like Federal-aid roads, highways,
and bridges from increasing natural disasters, and to improve
the long-term resilience of the systems. I believe the
committee should look into the concept as a possible model for
the future.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, members of the committee,
it is an honor to be here, and thank you for your work.
[Mr. Quigley's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Quigley, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Members of the Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee about a number of different priorities
that are important to me and my constituents.
As the Vice-Chairman of the Transportation, Housing, and Urban
Development Appropriations Subcommittee, I believe it is vital that
THUD and T&I work together to ensure that America's infrastructure is a
driver of economic growth and meets the needs of all our citizens.
And I think we'd all agree that we have a lot of work to do make
get to that point.
First this morning, I'd like to speak about the Federal Bird Safe
Buildings Act, which is before this committee.
In fact, I have introduced a version of this bill in every Congress
I have been a member of because I believe that we have a responsibility
to be good stewards of the world we live in.
Up to one billion birds die from colliding into buildings every
year, which is a totally preventable problem.
The cost-negligible, bipartisan Bird Safe Buildings Act requires
that public buildings constructed, acquired, or significantly altered
by GSA incorporate bird-safe building materials and design features.
Bird-safe is an important bill for several reasons.
First birds have an intrinsic cultural, and ecological value. It is
our responsibility to be good stewards of the environment and reduce
the harmful impacts of our society on the natural world.
Additionally, birds help generate billions of dollars annually to
the U.S. economy through wildlife watching activities.
One in five Americans, 48 million people, engage in bird watching.
And they spend about $36 billion in pursuit of birding activities
every year.
These activities support over 600,000 jobs and bring $6.2 billion
in state tax revenues.
For all these reasons, it's vital that we take the simple,
straightforward, and low cost steps in my bill to protect birds from
fatal collisions.
This bill has been referred to Chairwoman Titus' subcommittee and I
thank her for her support of it in the past. I urge the committee to
quickly consider and pass the Bird Safe Buildings Act so that it can be
brought the floor for a vote in the full House.
Next, I'd like to talk about something that is an issue for every
city in this country, and Chicago is no exception--funding for public
transportation.
Effective public transit makes cities more livable and accessible
for all inhabitants.
Transit oriented development can turn wasted or unused land into
vibrant communities and can allow existing communities to access
economic and social opportunities that otherwise might be difficult for
them to grasp.
For too long, public transit has been underserved by Congress and I
will work with Chairman Price and my colleagues on appropriations to
ensure that adequate funding is provided for transit systems this year,
but we are most effective in Congress when working together.
In all of its work this Congress, I urge this committee to consider
public transit needs and, specifically, to clarify for the Secretary of
Transportation that key federal programs like TIFIA and RRIF should not
be included as part of the federal share of a project as part of the
Capital Investment Grant Program.
Chicagoland agencies like RTA are working hard to ensure that our
infrastructure continues to meet the needs of our citizens and shoring
up the Highway Trust Fund and addressing the capital construction
backlog are key to achieving that goal.
Finally, I want to touch on the issue of flooding, which is a
serious concern in Chicago and communities around the country.
Today, I reintroduced the Flood Mapping Modernization and Homeowner
Empowerment Pilot Program Act, which will create a 12 city pilot
program and give communities the resources they need to address urban
flooding within their local contexts, while also helping FEMA glean new
best practices to help improve flood mapping and mitigation nationwide.
I encourage the committee to take up and to pass that bill, but
there's also room for additional pre-disaster work to address flooding.
A pre-disaster infrastructure program as part of the FHWA is one
possible approach to safeguard the nation's vital transportation
systems like federal-aid roads, highways, and bridges from increasing
natural disasters and to improve the long term resilience of the
system.
I believe the committee should look into such a concept as a
possible model for the future.
Chairman DeFazio, members of the Committee, thank you for your time
today. I look forward to working with the committee going forward and
thank you for your good work for the infrastructure of our country.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful
testimony, particularly beginning with the idea that the needs
are national in scope and these problems don't stop at a city
limits or a State line. And that is very insightful.
We look forward to your advocacy on that subcommittee. We
hope that, moving forward, you will have more money to allocate
to some of these needs.
And I wasn't aware of your Bird-Safe Buildings Act, but I
certainly would be interested in having the Federal Government
lead the way on that issue. So I appreciate that, and I will be
taking a look at that. So thank you, thanks for your testimony.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. Any members of the committee have questions
for the gentleman?
Mr. Quigley. Thank you all, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. Seeing none, thank you.
Mr. Marshall? Yes. The next arrived is the Honorable Roger
Marshall from Kansas.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ROGER W. MARSHALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member
Graves, and members of this committee, and good morning. Thanks
for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the people
of Kansas surrounding the upcoming infrastructure package.
This year our office has already hosted 22 townhalls, and
infrastructure consistently remains a ``top three'' topic for
discussion. I represent the big First Congressional District of
Kansas, which I continue to argue is the largest agriculture-
producing district in the country.
Agriculture, of course, has a large reliance on surface
transportation to get our commodities, which now include wheat,
sorghum, soybeans, corn, cotton--yes, Kansas is now growing
cotton--milk, distillers grain, ethanol, eggs, pork, and beef
to market. In fact, I often brag as I travel, the two things
American agriculture can still do is produce more per acre and
get our goods to market cheaper and more reliably than any
other country in the world.
But I am afraid our infrastructure has been left somewhat
neglected over the past decade or so, and America is suffering.
With the FAST Act expiring next year, developing or
extending programs to keep our roads and bridges well
maintained through the Highway Trust Fund or BUILD grant
program are of critical importance.
Long-term funding for surface transportation infrastructure
allows communities to better plan and invest in their
communities, and ultimately helps the rural economy continue to
grow.
I should also mention a concern raised by many of our
farmers and ranchers as they strive to get their livestock
safely to market. My weekend job in high school and college was
loading and unloading cattle at a local sell barn. From
personal experiences I can say that transportation is the most
stressful event for livestock animals that they can endure. And
as a matter of emphasis, the amount of time an animal spends in
transit is impacted by a variety of burdensome regulations.
As cochair of the Congressional Beef Caucus, I ask you to
consider including a 150 air-mile exemption for livestock
hauling operations on both the front and back end of a trip,
which would reduce unnecessary stress on the livestock and
increase animal health, welfare, and safety.
Water infrastructure is also of vital importance to our
district, whether through availability of quality water sources
or upgrading the aging water towers, levees, and dams, as well
as underground pipes in many municipalities across the State.
Many communities in my district are having to dig new water
wells due to declining water availability or quality, which is
a costly burden that many of these small towns cannot afford.
Similarly, the aging state of water towers and pipes create
health and safety concerns, in addition to issues with water
delivery. Ensuring that rural communities are able to
adequately maintain their water infrastructure and deliver safe
drinking water to constituents is a priority, as is
guaranteeing availability of quality water sources for
agriculture purposes.
Furthermore, flood mitigation efforts through preservation
and maintenance of levees, locks, dams, and sound conservation
practices protects homes and businesses, and allows communities
to expand and invest in new development.
The Essential Air Service Program and the Airport
Improvement Program are also programs that continue to help the
rural communities in my district survive. Through the Essential
Air Service Program cities like Hays, Liberal, Salina, Garden
City, and Dodge City, Kansas, are able to provide passenger
service to multiple major hubs, as well as access to economic
development opportunities.
Furthermore, these communities utilize the Airport
Improvement Program to maintain airport infrastructure,
ensuring traveler safety and allowing small airports to plan
their investments for the future.
I understand that broadband is not within the jurisdiction
of this committee. However, I feel that infrastructure packages
should include broadband in the conversation. In nearly every
townhall that I have held since coming to Congress, access to
broadband has consistently been a top priority and issue for
our constituents. The high cost of broadband deployment,
coupled with the low population and vast expanses in rural
America, make infrastructure implementation challenging and
expensive for many communities.
Overall, as we move closer towards an infrastructure
package, I ask that the committee take the consideration of
these unique challenges facing rural America. Whether it comes
to infrastructure investments, surface transportation, water
infrastructure, airport programs, and broadband are of critical
importance to my district, as well as all of rural America, and
thus for the American economy.
As a true investment for our children and our
grandchildren's sake for this economic future and prosperity of
America, I ask for robust support for the programs mentioned.
Infrastructure is something this whole country can rally
behind, giving us a common goal and purpose. It could be the
start of a new day, a day when Republicans and Democrats once
again work together to make our country strong for the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[Mr. Marshall's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Roger W. Marshall, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Kansas
Thank you Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of
this Committee for giving me an opportunity to contribute to the
discussion surrounding the upcoming infrastructure package. This year,
my office has already hosted more than 20 town halls, and
infrastructure consistently remains a top 3 topic for discussion. So
today, I would like to hit a few points related to surface
transportation, water infrastructure, airport programs, and broadband.
I represent the big First District of Kansas, arguably one of the
largest Ag producing district in the country. With more than 60
counties in central and western Kansas, and spanning over two-thirds of
the state, you can see why folks back home call it ``the Big First.''
Agriculture has a large reliance on surface transportation to get
our commodities, such as wheat, sorghum, soybeans, corn, cotton, milk,
distillers grain, ethanol, pork, and beef to market. In fact, I often
brag, the two things American agriculture does is produce more per acre
and get our goods to market cheaper and more reliably than any other
country in the world. But I'm afraid our infrastructure has been left
somewhat neglected over the past decade or so, and America is
suffering.
With the FAST Act expiring next year, developing or extending
programs to keep our roads and bridges well maintained, such as the
Highway Trust Fund or the BUILD grant program, is of critical
importance. Long-term funding for surface transportation infrastructure
allows communities to better plan and invest in their communities, and
ultimately helps the rural economy continue to grow.
In addition to surface transportation, water infrastructure is of
vital importance to my district, whether through availability of
quality water sources, or upgrading the aging water towers, levees, and
dams, as well as underground pipes in many municipalities across my
state. Many communities in my district are having to dig new wells due
to declining water availability or quality, which is a costly burden
that many of these small towns cannot afford. Similarly, the aging
state of water towers and pipes creates health and safety concerns, in
addition to issues with water delivery. Ensuring that rural communities
are able to adequately maintain their water infrastructure and deliver
safe drinking water to constituents is a priority, as is guaranteeing
availability of quality water sources for agricultural purposes.
Furthermore, flood mitigation efforts through preservation and
maintenance of levees, locks, and dams protect homes and businesses,
and allow communities to expand and invest in new development.
The Essential Air Service program and the Airport Improvement
Program are also programs that continue to help the rural communities
in my district. Through the Essential Air Service program, the cities
of Hays, Liberal, Salina, Garden City, and Dodge City, Kansas are able
to provide passenger service to multiple major air hubs, as well as
access to economic development opportunities. Furthermore, these
communities utilize the Airport Improvement Program to maintain airport
infrastructure, ensuring traveler safety and allowing small airports to
plan their investments for the future.
I understand that broadband is not within the jurisdiction of this
Committee, however I feel that any infrastructure package should
include broadband in the conversation. In nearly every town hall that I
have held since coming to Congress, access to broadband has
consistently been a top issue for my constituents. The high cost of
broadband deployment coupled with a low population and vast expanses in
rural America makes infrastructure deployment challenging and expensive
for many communities. Yet our society continues to transition more and
more toward digital connections, whether for education, healthcare, or
even agriculture, making a reliable and affordable internet access no
longer optional.
Overall, as we move closer toward an infrastructure package, I ask
that the Committee take into consideration the unique challenges facing
rural communities when it comes to infrastructure investments. Surface
transportation, water infrastructure, airport programs, and broadband
are of critical importance to my district as well as rural America, and
thus for the American economy. As a true investment for our children's
and grandchildren's sake, and for the economic future and prosperity of
America, I ask for robust support for the programs mentioned.
Infrastructure is something the whole country can rally behind, giving
us all a common goal and purpose; it can be the start of a new day, a
day when Republicans and Democrats once again work together to make our
country strong for the future.
I thank the Committee for the opportunity to share about the
impacts that these issues have on the State of Kansas, and I yield back
the remainder of my time.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful
testimony, again, underlining the critical Essential Air
Service Program, where we have a little--as I said to a
previous colleague--a little work to do downtown to convince
them on the merits of the program. But Congress has always been
supportive, no matter what the position of administrations,
other side of the aisle, have been.
We have done a number of limited exemptions for agriculture
in the past. I will be happy to look at the gentleman's
concerns on livestock.
And with that, are there any questions from the--the
gentlelady from Kansas has a question.
Two minutes.
Ms. Davids. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to
thank Congressman Marshall for coming here and talking about
some of the issues that are so important, particularly for a
State like Kansas, where we are constantly trying to bridge the
rural/suburban/urban divide that ends up happening, and just
want to express my appreciation for you coming to talk about
the rural broadband issues that I know our State is facing.
And then also, just to note that you're talking about the
kind of getting rid of the partisan politics around making sure
that we are addressing infrastructure issues is so important.
And I know that you and I have already had the chance to
work on some of the agricultural ELD delays, and then issues
around healthcare and trying to make sure that we are doing
what is best for our communities. And I just want to tell you
that I am glad that you are here today on behalf of the Kansas
First Congressional District and all of Kansas, to make sure
that we are addressing those issues. So thank you.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Congresswoman. We are all in this
together. Thanks for having me.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman; I thank the gentlelady
for her contribution.
I neglected to say one of the consensus items--there were
some items that were not consensus, but one of the consensus
items in the meeting with the President yesterday was broadband
as a critical infrastructure investment for all America.
So with that, I thank the gentleman. If there are no
further questions--oh, question? Yes?
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Congressman Marshall, I couldn't agree with you more on the
Essential Air Service. Rural airports are--they matter, and I
have many in my district, and we have talked about that. So
that really should be a bipartisan issue through and through.
So thank you for commenting on that.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you. It is another way to connect rural
America to the rest of the world. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. Any further questions?
Seeing none, I thank the gentleman. The gentlelady, Ms.
Underwood, has been very patient.
And I recognize you for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. LAUREN UNDERWOOD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing this
opportunity for all Members to share their priorities with the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
I am thrilled that the new Democratic majority in the House
is approaching infrastructure with the serious, big-picture
thinking that it deserves. I am encouraged by the bipartisan
meeting that was held at the White House yesterday, and truly
hope that Congress and the White House will work together to
enact legislation this Congress to invest in 21st-century
infrastructure for America.
I am a freshman Member of this body, and I represent my
home, Illinois' 14th Congressional District. Upon taking office
this January, one of my very first priorities was to
proactively reach out to my constituents to learn about their
communities' infrastructure needs, with the intent of
contributing to this infrastructure package.
From engaging with people in my district I learned that our
infrastructure investments need to be, one, inclusive of
smaller communities, and not just for the big cities; two,
broad and bold enough to go beyond roads and bridges; and,
three, focused on building new infrastructure, as well as
repairing the old.
First, this package needs to be inclusive when it comes to
improving infrastructure. We need to make sure that the needs
of small and mid-sized towns in America are represented, not
just the big guys.
For example, St. Charles, Illinois, needs $500,000 to
improve a local fire station. Elburn, Illinois, needs $1.3
million to replace lead pipes in many of the village's homes,
so that drinking water is free from lead and other
contaminants. Yorkville, Illinois, needs $400,000 to refurbish
a widely used outdoor recreation facility in the Kendall County
Forest Preserve.
You see, people in my district aren't thinking in the
trillions. But for some of them, they might as well be. Because
when we examined the details of these requests, we found that
so many of them didn't have options for help from the Federal
Government within existing funding streams.
Next, we need to adopt a broad and bold approach to
investing in infrastructure. We do need rail and roads in my
district, and we also need to think more broadly. Rail and
surface transportation is important. Expanding Metra mass
transit service to more of the Chicago suburbs is one of the
top priorities for economic and cultural growth in my district.
We need new transit stops and we need new transit lines.
Right now, Kendall County is the fastest growing county in
Illinois. But Metra rail service doesn't extend to Montgomery,
to Oswego, Yorkville, Plano, or Sandwich. Students at Northern
Illinois University, which serves over 25,000 students, don't
have direct access to transit to Chicago for internships or
career opportunities.
Our State absolutely has a role to play here in funding and
development. But Illinois is a huge player in the national
economy. We pay Federal taxes and we need a strong partner in
Federal Government.
In addition to new mass transit, we need better roads. I
was in McCullom Lake a few weeks ago and saw firsthand how bad
the conditions of the roads affect road safety and the local
economy. And unfortunately, McCullom Lake Road is just one of
the many roads in my district that need critical repairs. But
as we develop this once-in-a-lifetime, agenda-setting package,
infrastructure needs to mean all that: roads, rail, and much,
much more.
In McHenry County, infrastructure means rural and broadband
access, including better metrics that better identify
communities in our districts that are still pretty much on
dial-up. Directing resources efficiently is key, and the devil
is definitely in the details when it comes to broadband
mapping.
In McHenry County and across the country accessing the
internet is critical for running a business, searching for a
job, getting an education, and even seeing a doctor. It is not
just about Netflix and Instagram.
In Batavia, infrastructure means building the Fox River
bike path to help reduce traffic and help people in our
community live healthier lives. In Naperville, infrastructure
means investing in our school facilities so that our kids get
the absolute best public education we can offer them.
And third, we need to invest in new projects, as well as
repair and maintain existing ones. Now, I am a nurse, and I can
tell you that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Continuing to put off maintenance of our existing
infrastructure isn't just dangerous; it is way too expensive.
These upgrades need to be made. And as you all know, they are
never going to be cheaper than they are today.
Will all of this be a serious investment? Of course.
Because we should be paying for quality American workers and
quality American jobs.
We know that infrastructure can be a smart investment that
pays off. That is our job in Congress: to make smart
investments in roads, transit, schools, technology, and clean
energy that power our economy. That is our job, and I am ready
to get to work.
Thank you again for having me today. I look forward to
working with you, with all of you on the committee, to bring
America's infrastructure into the future.
[Ms. Underwood's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lauren Underwood, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Illinois
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing this opportunity for all
Members to share their priorities with the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee.
I am thrilled that the new Democratic majority in the House is
approaching infrastructure with the serious, big-picture thinking it
deserves.
I'm encouraged by the bipartisan meeting that was held at the White
House yesterday, and truly hope that Congress and the White House can
work together to enact legislation this Congress to invest in 21st
century infrastructure for America.
I'm a freshman Member of this body, and I represent my home,
Illinois's 14th District.
Upon taking office this January, one of my very first priorities
was to proactively reach out to my constituents to learn about their
communities' infrastructure needs, with the intent of contributing to
this infrastructure package.
From engaging with people in my District, I learned that our
infrastructure investments need to be:
(1) inclusive of smaller communities and not just for the big
cities;
(2) broad and bold enough to go beyond roads and bridges; and
(3) focused on building new infrastructure as well as repairing
the old.
First, this package needs to be inclusive when it comes to
improving infrastructure.
We need to make sure that the needs of small- and mid-size towns in
America are represented, not just the big guys.
For example:
St. Charles, Illinois, needs $500,000 to improve a local
fire station.
Elburn, Illinois, needs $1.3 million to replace lead
pipes in many of the village's homes, so that drinking water is free
from lead and other contaminants.
Yorkville, Illinois, needs $400,000 to refurbish a
widely-used outdoor recreation facility in the Kendall County Forest
Preserve.
You see, people in my district aren't thinking in the trillions.
But for some of them, they might as well be.
Because when we examined the details of these requests, we found
that so many of them didn't have options for help from the federal
government within existing funding streams.
Next, we need to adopt a broad and bold approach to investing in
``infrastructure.'' We do need rail and roads in my district, and we
also need to think more broadly.
Rail and surface transportation is important. Expanding Metra mass
transit service to more of the Chicago suburbs is one of the top
priorities for economic and cultural growth in my district.
We need new transit stops and we need new transit lines. Right now,
Kendall County is growing faster than any other county in Illinois. But
Metra rail service doesn't extend to Montgomery, Oswego, Yorkville,
Plano, or Sandwich.
Students at Northern Illinois University, which serves over 25,000
students, don't have direct access to transit to Chicago for
internships or other career opportunities.
Our state absolutely has a role to play here, in funding and
development. But Illinois is a huge player in the national economy, we
pay federal taxes, and we need a strong partner in the federal
government.
In addition to new mass transit, we need better roads. I was in
McCollum Lake a few weeks ago and saw firsthand how the bad conditions
of the roads affect road safety and the local economy. And
unfortunately, McCollum Lake Road is just one of many roads in my
district that need critical repairs.
But as we develop this once-in-a-lifetime, agenda-setting package,
``infrastructure'' needs to mean all that--roads, rail--and much, much
more.
In McHenry County, ``infrastructure'' means rural broadband
access--including better metrics that better identify communities in
our districts that are still pretty much on dial-up.
(Directing resources efficiently is key, and the devil is
definitely in the details when it comes to broadband mapping.)
In McHenry and across the country, accessing the internet is
critical for running a business, searching for a job, getting an
education, and even seeing a doctor. It's not just about Netflix and
Instagram.
In Batavia, ``infrastructure'' means building the Fox River bike
path to reduce traffic and help people in our community lead healthier
lives.
In Naperville, ``infrastructure'' means investing in our school
facilities so that our kids get the absolute best public education we
can offer them.
And third, we need to invest in new projects as well as repair and
maintain existing ones. Now, I'm a nurse, and I can tell you that an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Continuing to put off maintenance of our existing infrastructure
isn't just dangerous, it's way too expensive.
These upgrades need to be made, and as you all know, they're never
going to be cheaper than they are today.
Will all of this be a serious investment? Of course. Because we
should be paying for quality American workers and quality American
jobs.
We know that infrastructure can be a smart investment that pays
off. That's our job in Congress: to make smart investments in roads,
transit, schools, technology, clean energy, that power our economy.
That's our job, and I'm ready to get to work. Thank you all again
for having me--I look forward to working with all of you to bring
America's infrastructure into the future.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady for her excellent
testimony, particularly drawing the analogy with your
background in medicine as a nurse, and how intervention before
something becomes very complicated and more expensive is the
best way to go. And you are absolutely right on infrastructure.
That is the key in bringing things up to a state of good
repair.
And as I mentioned earlier, broadband was discussed, and a
consensus item yesterday, recognizing what you talked about,
the connectivity and also the need for more physical
connectivity to the urban areas. So thank you very----
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, sir.
Mr. DeFazio [continuing]. Thoughtful testimony. And with
that I would turn to the gentleman--the majority leader from
Maryland, Mr. Hoyer, for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. STENY H. HOYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
congratulate you for your leadership, and I want to also thank
you for your leadership in our meeting with the President
yesterday, which I think led to a bipartisan conclusion as to
the extent of the investment that we need to make, and the fact
that we need to work together to accomplish it.
I appreciate this opportunity to participate in today's
meeting. Yesterday morning a number of us, as I just said, met
with the President at the White House to discuss the importance
of investing in 21st-century infrastructure.
This issue, as you have articulated so effectively, Mr.
Chairman, is of major importance to all of America. That is why
it is one of the three core components of the agenda that I
have been talking about for the last 9 years, Make It In
America, I have been proud to lead, the others being education
and skills training, and entrepreneurship. As part of that
effort last Congress I traveled around the country hosting
listening sessions with members of the local communities.
What we heard everywhere we went was that the needs were
massive, both to rebuild as life cycles near retirement, and to
get ahead of the challenges we know technological advancement
will bring.
We also heard how private capital has some role to play,
although clearly, public investment will be the major part of
our rebuilding effort. But there is no substitute for robust
public investment, particularly in those areas and those
projects that don't promise the private sector profit.
Everyone can see that roads, railways, bridges, airports,
seaports, sewers, and water systems across the country are in
desperate need of repair. Flint is just the very tip of the
iceberg that exists in our country, and that is true throughout
America. It is true in Maryland; it is true in my own Fifth
Congressional District.
Many of my constituents commute to Washington from both
Prince George's County and southern Maryland in some of the
worst congestion in the Nation. Last month the National Park
Service had to begin emergency repairs on the Baltimore-
Washington Parkway because of the condition of that road.
In addition, after years of deferring maintenance and
failure to invest in a sustainable funding source, the Metro
system, the system we refer to as America's subway, is facing
real challenges. The general manager of that system is working
to restore the safety and reliability of the system, but this
process will take time. Millions of your constituents--and I
look to the whole committee membership--ride on that system as
they visit our city and visit their Capital.
Communities across the country, including Prince George's
County, which is the county just to the east of Washington,
have seen water infrastructure fail and cause flooding. They
have seen our Nation's infrastructure pushed to its limits by
more frequent and more severe weather caused by climate change.
Those are just the current problems we need to address. But
if we wish to remain, Mr. Chairman, an economic leader, and
grow for the future, we are also going to have to be proactive
and direct significant investments toward expanding and
modernizing our Nation's infrastructure.
This also means, as we discussed at the White House, and as
the President and we agreed, expanding wireless and broadband
internet, expanding the infrastructure for more electric
vehicles and taking steps to integrate more renewable forms of
energy into the grid, including technologies to store and
distribute energy, as well.
In 2017 the American Society of Civil Engineers graded our
country's infrastructure as a D+. Mr. Chairman, I imagine you
pointed that out over and over and over again. But it bears
repeating with an estimated need of $4.5 trillion to meet our
infrastructure needs in the near and long term.
With the President's leadership, and with our working
together, we are not going to get to $4.5 trillion, but
hopefully we will get to a very significant number and figure
out how to pay for it, as well. That is why infrastructure
remains a top priority, not only for House Democrats, but, as
we learned yesterday, for the President of the United States.
Investments in infrastructure are proven to help local
economies attract new private-sector businesses and good-paying
jobs that come with them. While we continue seeking ways to
work with the White House, I hope the committee will draw ideas
from the hearing and put forward solutions that have broad,
bipartisan support, and that should be able to pass both the
House and the Senate and deliver results for the American
people.
I want to thank the committee for the work it has already
begun and look forward to seeing what it produces. And I look
forward to working closely with those of you on the committee
on both sides of the aisle to introduce and advance Make It In
America legislation to invest in 21st-century infrastructure.
[Mr. Hoyer's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Steny H. Hoyer, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Maryland
Thank you, Chairman Peter DeFazio and Ranking Member Sam Graves. I
appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's Member Hearing.
Yesterday morning, a number of us met with President Trump at the
White House to discuss the importance of investing in twenty-first
century infrastructure. This is an issue of major importance to
millions of Americans.
That is why it is one of the three core components of the Make It
In America plan I've been proud to lead, the others being education and
skills training and entrepreneurship. As part of that effort last
Congress, I traveled around the country hosting listening sessions with
Members in their local communities. What we heard everywhere we went
was that the needs were massive, both to rebuild as life cycles near
retirement and to get ahead of the challenges we know technological
advancement will bring. We also heard how private capital has some role
to play, but there is no substitute for robust public investment,
particularly in those areas and on those projects that don't promise
the private sector profit.
Everyone can see that roads, railways, bridges, airports, seaports,
sewers, and water systems across the country are in desperate need of
repair. That is true in my own Fifth District of Maryland, as well.
Many of my constituents commute to Washington from both Prince George's
County and Southern Maryland in some of the worst congestion in the
nation.
Last month, the National Park Service had to begin emergency
repairs on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway because of the condition of
the road. In addition, after years of deferring maintenance and failure
to invest in a sustainable funding source, the Metro system in
Washington is facing real challenges. The General Manager is working to
restore the safety and reliability of the system, but this process will
take time.
And communities across the country, including in Prince George's
County, have seen water infrastructure fail and cause flooding, and
they've seen our nation's infrastructure pushed to its limits by more
frequent and more severe weather caused by climate change.
Those are just current problems we need to address, but if we wish
to remain an economic leader and grow for the future, we are also going
to have to be proactive and direct significant investments toward
expanding and modernizing our nation's infrastructure. This also means
expanding wireless and broadband internet, expanding the infrastructure
for more electric vehicles, and taking steps to integrate more
renewable forms of energy into the grid, including technologies to
store and distribute the energy generated.
In 2017, the American Society of Civil Engineers graded our
country's infrastructure a `D+,' with an estimated need of $4.5
trillion to meet our infrastructure needs in the near and long term.
That's why infrastructure remains a top priority for House Democrats.
Investments in infrastructure are proven to help local economies
attract new private sector businesses and the good paying jobs that
come with them.
While we continue seeking ways to work with the White House, I hope
the Committee will draw ideas from this hearing and put forward
solutions that have broad, bipartisan support and that should be able
to pass both the House and Senate and deliver results for the American
people.
I thank the Committee for the work it has already begun and look
forward to seeing what it produces. And I look forward to working
closely with those of you on the Committee and with other Members to
introduce and advance Make It In America legislation to invest in
twenty-first century infrastructure. Thank you.
Mr. Hoyer. One second remaining.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman for his precise
observance of the time limits. And I want to thank him for his
leadership in helping organize that meeting yesterday, which I
thought was an excellent start, and also for pointing out and
emphasizing Make It In America, Made In America.
And I know the gentleman knows this, but transportation
infrastructure has the strictest Buy America rules of any part
of the Federal Government, way more so than the Pentagon or
other agencies, but we still see a few places for improvement
that I hope to do in the coming long-term authorization to
bring even more jobs here and better our infrastructure at the
same time.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to working
with you to schedule a major piece of legislation that you will
argue. And hopefully the ranking member will be with you, and
we will have a bipartisan bill that will pass and will make a
difference for our country.
Mr. DeFazio. That is the tradition of this committee. It is
probably the most bipartisan committee in a Congress that
oftentimes is a little too partisan.
So I thank the gentleman. Any Members have questions? OK.
Seeing none, I thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, the gentleman from Rhode Island was the
next arrival, Mr. Langevin.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman DeFazio,
Ranking Member Graves, for the opportunity to testify before
you today. And I would like to take this opportunity to
highlight an issue that is particularly important to my
constituents in Rhode Island and to workers and businesses
across the country. That is investing in a skilled
infrastructure workforce.
I am sure encouraged by your plans to craft robust
infrastructure legislation to strengthen our communities and
stimulate our economy. I certainly echo the words of the
majority leader and the need for infrastructure investment, and
your comments as well, Mr. Chairman.
In thinking of Rhode Island, I know that we have some of
the greatest infrastructure needs in the country. And our
needs, of course, are indicative of those of every
congressional district across the country.
But rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure will also
require more than investments in bridges, roads, waterways, and
broadband; it will require a workforce that can design, build,
and maintain them. So therefore, as the committee works to
craft its infrastructure agenda over the coming months, I urge
you to consider investments in proven workforce development
strategies, including career and technical education and
apprenticeships to prepare our workers to realize these
opportunities that are ahead of us.
So just by way of example, the Brookings Institution
estimates that 3 million more workers will be needed to support
the Nation's infrastructure over the next 10 years, including
designing, building, and operating transportation, housing,
utilities, and telecommunications. However, Georgetown
University estimates that with a trillion-dollar Federal
infrastructure investment, we would more than double the number
of required high-skill workers.
So this is a great opportunity for millions of Americans
who are out of work, underemployed, or seeking higher wages.
However, without adequate skills training, these workers won't
be prepared to fill open jobs and carry out high-priority
infrastructure projects.
So I am not alone in my concern. In fact, on March 6, 2018,
during a hearing in this committee on the President's
infrastructure proposal, Transportation Secretary Chao
testified, and I quote, ``We probably will not have enough
skilled trades workers to be able to address all the
infrastructure needs when it finally gets all going, so the
workforce training and retraining part is important.''
So many of these jobs do not require a bachelor's degree,
but they do involve a significant amount of on-the-job
training. CTE and apprenticeships are proven strategies that
give individuals the education and work-based learning they
need for success in these high-skill, higher wage careers
fields.
Now, last July, Congress recognized CTE and apprenticeships
as effective workforce development strategies when we
unanimously reauthorized the Carl D. Perkins Career and
Technical Education Act, which the President subsequently
signed into law last July. This bipartisan victory demonstrated
Congress' renewed commitment to skills-based education in high-
demand industries, and I certainly hope that the committee will
continue moving this trend forward.
Specifically, I would ask that you include in any
infrastructure package a requirement that States devote a
portion of any funds they receive to workforce development
programs, including career and technical education, with the
flexibility to invest in programs that they deem appropriate
through coordination with local workforce boards.
So I also request that you include incentives for
infrastructure-related businesses that invest in work-based
learning, including apprenticeship programs, and dedicated
resources for updating the facilities and equipment used in CTE
programs that train students for employment in infrastructure
jobs.
So each of these components is critical to building a
workforce ready to fill millions of high-skill jobs over the
next decade, and my fellow cochair of the Career and Technical
Education Caucus, Representative G.T. Thompson from
Pennsylvania, and I will also be sending an official letter to
you and the ranking member in support of these investments.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to include
a copy of the letter text in the record.
Mr. DeFazio. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Letter of May 1, 2019, from Members of Congress Advocating for Career
and Technical Education, Submitted for the Record by Hon. James R.
Langevin, a Representative in Congress from the State of Rhode Island
May 1, 2019.
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
The Honorable Kevin McCarthy,
House Minority Leader,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
The Honorable Peter DeFazio,
Chairman,
Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
The Honorable Sam Graves,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi, Leader McCarthy, Chairman DeFazio and Ranking
Member Graves:
As you craft legislation to strengthen our nation's infrastructure,
we respectfully request that you include investments in proven
workforce development strategies, including career and technical
education (CTE) and apprenticeships.
Rebuilding our nation's infrastructure will require more than just
bridges, roads, and waterways; it will require the development of a
skilled workforce that can design, build, and maintain that
infrastructure. The Brookings Institution estimates that 3 million
additional workers will be needed for the nation's infrastructure in
the next decade, including designing, building and operating
transportation, housing, utilities and telecommunications \1\. On March
6, 2018, during a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
hearing on the President's infrastructure proposal, Secretary of
Transportation Elaine Chao testified, ``we probably will not have
enough skilled trades workers to be able to address all the
infrastructure needs when it finally gets all going . . . So, the
workforce training and retraining part is important.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kane, Joseph and Adie Tomer. Infrastructure skills: Knowledge,
tools, and training to increase opportunity (May 2016). Retrieved from:
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/
metro_20160510_infrastructure_skills_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many jobs in infrastructure sectors do not require a bachelor's
degree, but they do involve a significant amount of on-the-job
training. CTE and apprenticeships are proven strategies that can
provide individuals with the education and work-based learning they
need for career success in these high-skill, high-wage industry sectors
or occupations. By including these investments in a comprehensive
infrastructure package, we will ensure that resources committed to our
nation's infrastructure will be effective, building on established
workforce development strategies to provide the skilled workers
required to carry out the projects.
Congress recently recognized CTE as an effective workforce
development strategy when it unanimously passed the Strengthening
Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (reauthorizing
the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act), which the
President subsequently signed into law (Public Law No: 115-224). We
must maintain this commitment moving forward. Therefore, we
respectfully request that you include the following in any
infrastructure legislation:
A stipulation that states devote a portion of the
infrastructure funds they receive to workforce development programs,
including CTE programs, with the flexibility to invest in such programs
they deem appropriate for local infrastructure needs, and that they
coordinate such investments with the agencies that receive the states'
funds from the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and Carl D.
Perkins CTE Act so as not to duplicate efforts;
Incentives for infrastructure-related businesses that
invest in work-based learning, including apprenticeship programs; and
Dedicated resources for updating the facilities and
equipment used in CTE programs of study in infrastructure sectors to
ensure they are aligned with fast-paced, ever-changing industry
expectations and standards.
We appreciate your consideration of these requests and look forward
to working with you to ensure these items are included in the nation-
wide infrastructure package. If you have any questions or would like to
discuss this further, please contact Kerry McKittrick with Congressman
Langevin or Nick Rockwell with Congressman Thompson.
Sincerely,
James R. Langevin,
Member of Congress.
Donald Norcross,
Member of Congress.
Abby Finkenauer,
Member of Congress.
Thomas R. Suozzi,
Member of Congress.
Tom Emmer,
Member of Congress.
Tom O'Halleran,
Member of Congress.
John Yarmuth,
Member of Congress.
Tom Malinowski,
Member of Congress.
Tim Ryan,
Member of Congress.
Troy Balderson,
Member of Congress.
Anthony Brown,
Member of Congress.
Angie Craig,
Member of Congress.
Lori Trahan,
Member of Congress.
TJ Cox,
Member of Congress.
Rick Larsen,
Member of Congress.
Susan W. Brooks,
Member of Congress.
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.
Member of Congress.
Don Young,
Member of Congress.
Kurt Schrader,
Member of Congress.
Denny Heck,
Member of Congress.
Robert E. Latta,
Member of Congress.
Raja Krishnamoorthi,
Member of Congress.
Andre Carson,
Member of Congress.
Suzanne Bonamici,
Member of Congress.
David Scott,
Member of Congress.
Cindy Axne,
Member of Congress.
Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,
Member of Congress.
David B. McKinley, P.E.,
Member of Congress.
Josh Harder,
Member of Congress.
Roger Marshall,
Member of Congress.
Elise Stefanik,
Member of Congress.
Anthony Brindisi,
Member of Congress.
Mike Thompson,
Member of Congress.
Sean Casten,
Member of Congress.
Seth Moulton,
Member of Congress.
Conor Lamb,
Member of Congress.
Darin LaHood,
Member of Congress.
Elissa Slotkin,
Member of Congress.
Brian Fitzpatrick,
Member of Congress.
Rob Wittman,
Member of Congress.
Peter Welch,
Member of Congress.
Blaine Luetkemeyer,
Member of Congress.
Julia Brownley,
Member of Congress.
Pete Visclosky,
Member of Congress.
Alma S. Adams, Ph.D.,
Member of Congress.
Brian Higgins,
Member of Congress.
Kendra S. Horn,
Member of Congress.
Bryan Steil,
Member of Congress.
Mark Pocan,
Member of Congress.
Adam Smith,
Member of Congress.
Cedric L. Richmond,
Member of Congress.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With that, Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves, I
want to thank you for the opportunity to testify, and for
considering these sensible, bipartisan requests.
With that, with 16 seconds left on the clock, I yield back
the balance of my time.
[Mr. Langevin's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. James R. Langevin, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Rhode Island
Thank you, Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves, for the
opportunity to testify today. I'd like to highlight an issue that's
particularly important to my constituents in Rhode Island and workers
and businesses across the country: investing in a skilled
infrastructure workforce.
I'm encouraged by your plans to craft robust infrastructure
legislation to strengthen our communities and stimulate our economy.
But rebuilding our nation's infrastructure will require more than
investments in bridges, roads, waterways, and broadband; it will
require a workforce that can design, build, and maintain them.
Therefore, as the Committee works to craft its infrastructure
agenda over the coming months, I urge you to consider investments in
proven workforce development strategies, including career and technical
education (CTE) and apprenticeships, to prepare our workers to realize
these opportunities ahead of us.
The Brookings Institution estimates that 3 million more workers
will be needed to support the nation's infrastructure over the next 10
years, including designing, building and operating transportation,
housing, utilities and telecommunications. However, Georgetown
University estimates that with a trillion-dollar federal infrastructure
investment, we'd more than double the number of required high-skill
workers.
This is a great opportunity for millions of Americans who are out
of work, underemployed, or seeking higher wages. However, without
adequate skills training, these workers won't be prepared to fill open
jobs and carry out high-priority infrastructure projects.
I'm not alone in my concern. On March 6, 2018, during a hearing in
this Committee on the President's infrastructure proposal,
Transportation Secretary Chao testified, ``we probably will not have
enough skilled trades workers to be able to address all the
infrastructure needs when it finally gets all going . . . So, the
workforce training and retraining part is important.''
Many of these jobs do not require a bachelor's degree, but they do
involve a significant amount of on-the-job training. CTE and
apprenticeships are proven strategies that give individuals the
education and work-based learning they need for success in these high-
skill, higher-wage careers fields.
Last July, Congress recognized CTE and apprenticeships as effective
workforce development strategies when we unanimously reauthorized the
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, which the President
subsequently signed into law. This bipartisan victory demonstrated
Congress's renewed commitment to skills-based education in high-demand
industries, and I hope the Committee will continue moving this trend
forward.
Specifically, I ask that you include in any infrastructure package
a requirement that states devote a portion of any funds they receive to
workforce development programs, including career and technical
education, with the flexibility to invest in programs they deem
appropriate through coordination with local workforce boards.
I also request that you include incentives for infrastructure-
related businesses that invest in work-based learning, including
apprenticeship programs, and dedicated resources for updating the
facilities and equipment used in CTE programs that train students for
employment in infrastructure jobs.
Each of these components is critical to building a workforce ready
to fill millions of high-skill jobs over the next decade, and my fellow
co-chair of the Career and Technical Education Caucus, Representative
``GT'' Thompson, and I will also be sending an official letter to you
and the Ranking Member in support of these investments. And I would ask
unanimous consent to include a copy of the letter text in the record.
Thank you again, Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves, for
the opportunity to testify, and for considering these sensible,
bipartisan requests.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman, and I particularly
thank him for his emphasis on the need for a skilled workforce.
And he will be happy to know that one of the principals in the
infrastructure meeting was Ivanka Trump, and that is a passion
with her, is CTE. So you got an ally down there in the White
House. So hopefully we will----
Mr. Langevin. Sounds good. All I can get.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. Next was the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr.
Himes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JAMES A. HIMES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Mr. Himes. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member
Graves, and members of the committee for having this hearing
today.
Infrastructure continues to be the single most pressing
issue in my district in southwestern Connecticut. Every
business leader I speak to, businesses large and small,
identifies this as the biggest challenge they have doing
business. And, of course, for everyday people, straphangers who
take Metro-North into New York City, to those, including
myself, who sit in nightmarish traffic on I-95 in the Merritt
Parkway. At any time approximating rush hour, our transit
systems are straining under years and years of underinvestment.
For generations we have built our way to prosperity. But
sadly, concerns in the last several generations about how to
pay for infrastructure have left us in an ever more desperate
situation. So I come here today to advocate for a discreet set
of issues.
But I just want to illustrate what happens in my district,
which is a fascinating place. It is an economic powerhouse. It
sits astride one of the true commercial arteries between New
York and Boston, and it is crumbling. The infrastructure is
crumbling. In the city of Bridgeport, there is a terrible story
where a bridge that used to connect the downtown and the
historic East Side--decades ago the bridge became inoperable.
So the bridge is gone. And two halves of a city are not
accessible to each other, with all of the effects that that has
on the economy of the city of Bridgeport and of the region.
And, by the way, that is not just Bridgeport. The American
Road and Transportation Builders Association says that 40
percent of our bridges need to be replaced or repaired, 47,000
bridges are structurally deficient nationally, including 308
bridges in Connecticut.
We have also seen the price of inaction in my own backyard.
In 1983, the Mianus River Bridge, which is on I-95 over a small
river in southwestern Connecticut, collapsed, killing three
motorists. I could go on and on, but I won't.
The good news is our new Governor, Ned Lamont, has proposed
a very serious focus on transportation, and at the State level
is having a contentious but important conversation about how we
pay for it. We are having a debate in Connecticut today over
whether we should put tolls on our highways. We remain the last
State in the region that doesn't have tolls on its highways.
Governor Ned Lamont has proposed what he calls the 30-30-30
plan, which would shorten train commutes from Hartford to New
Haven, from New Haven to Stamford, and from Stamford into New
York City to just 30 minutes. That sounds ambitious, but the
Europeans are already way past that, the Asians are already way
past that. This is something that we absolutely need to do.
So I don't want to continue to list the challenges, and I
am sure you are going to hear from every corner of the country
today about the necessity of doing this. I am just going to
close with an appeal, which is an appeal for pragmatism and
compromise on this issue.
I have been around long enough to know that both parties
and all of us are tempted to let the perfect be the enemy of
the good. We are in divided Government. Nobody is getting
everything that they want. So I just, given the intensity and
the urgency of this problem, appeal to every member of this
committee and to all my colleagues and to Members of the Senate
to let's not let the perfect be the enemy of economic survival.
This is essential.
On my side of the aisle we are going to need to be
openminded to things that will be hard to be openminded about.
On the other side of the aisle, I hope you gentlemen and other
people in the party will realize that we do need the resources
to pay for this investment.
So again, just a plea for the kind of pragmatism and
compromise that I know could lead to a truly historic piece of
legislation here, and investment in our infrastructure that
will improve our quality of life and help all of our economies.
With that I will close and say thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Mr. Himes' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. James A. Himes, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Connecticut
Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of
the Committee for having this hearing today.
Infrastructure continues to be the single most pressing issue in my
district in southwestern Connecticut.
Every business leader I speak to, from businesses large and small,
identifies this as the biggest challenge they have doing business. And,
of course, for everyday people: straphangers who take Metro North into
New York City and those, including myself, who sit in nightmarish
traffic on 95 and the Merritt Parkway at any time approximating rush
hour. Our transit systems are straining under years and years of
underinvestment. For generations, we built our way to prosperity, but,
sadly, concerns in the last several generations about how to pay for
infrastructure have left us in an evermore desperate situation.
So, I come here today to advocate for a discrete set of issues, but
I just want to illustrate what happens in my district, which is a
fascinating place. It's an economic powerhouse. It sits astride the two
commercial arteries between New York and Boston, and it is crumbling.
The infrastructure is crumbling. In the city of Bridgeport, there is a
terrible story where a bridge that used to connect downtown and the
historic East Side decades ago became inoperable. So, the bridge is
gone, and the two halves of the city are not accessible to each other,
with all of the effects that has on the economy of the city of
Bridgeport and of the region.
That's not just Bridgeport--the American Road and Transportation
Builders Association says that 40% of our bridges need to be replaced
or repaired, 47,000 bridges are structurally deficient nationally,
including 308 bridges in Connecticut. We've also seen the price of
inaction in my own backyard. In 1983, the Mianus River Bridge, which is
on I-95 over a small river in southwestern Connecticut, collapsed,
killing three motorists. I could go on and on, but I won't.
Though the off-system bridge set-aside and BUILD grants provide a
sizable amount of funding, the problem is just too severe and deserves
our attention. This Committee should consider increasing the Surface
Transportation Block Grant Program authorization in order to
proportionately increase the amount of money going to off-system
bridges or set up a separate and distinct grant program with robust
funding to address this looming crisis.
Our new governor, Ned Lamont, has proposed a very serious focus on
transportation. At the state level, Governor Lamont has proposed the
``30-30-30 plan,'' which would shorten the train commutes from Hartford
to New Haven, New Haven to Stamford, and Stamford to New York City to
just 30 minutes each.
That sounds ambitious, but the Europeans are already way past that,
the Asians are already way past that. This is something that we
absolutely need to do. So, I don't want to continue to list the
challenges, I'm sure you're going to hear it from every corner of the
country today about the necessity of doing this.
The plan only seeks to do what countries around the world have been
doing for decades, connecting cities, but it would require significant
funding to make changes to the physical infrastructure and procure more
trains.
Future surface transportation authorizations or freestanding
infrastructure bills should view these kinds of transportation projects
as what they are: the kind of investments that will catalyze regional
economic growth in a way that more than pays their costs over time.
I'm just going to close with an appeal, which is an appeal for
pragmatism and compromise on this issue. I've been around long enough
to know that both parties and all of us are tempted to let the perfect
be the enemy of the good. We're in divided government; not anybody is
getting everything that they want. So, given the intensity and the
urgency of this problem, I appeal to every member of this committee and
to all my colleagues and to members of the Senate: let's not let the
perfect be the enemy of economic survival. This is essential on my side
of the aisle. We're going to need to be openminded to things that will
be hard to be openminded about on the other side of the aisle. I hope
you all and other people in the party will realize that we do need the
resources to pay for this investment.
So again, just a plea for the kind of pragmatism and compromise
that I know could lead to truly a historic piece of legislation here
and an investment in our infrastructure that will improve our quality
of life and help all of our economies. With that, I'll close and say
thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. I thank him in
particular for emphasizing the fact that this is a bipartisan
problem and a bipartisan need, and also for highlighting
bridges--as you said, 47,000 bridges need significant work.
They are structurally deficient. And another 235,000 need work.
This is critical investment we can't afford not to make. So I
thank you for your advocacy and your testimony.
Anyone on the panel?
Yes, Mr. Mitchell for 2 minutes.
Mr. Mitchell. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I will be briefer than
that.
I would encourage my colleague and all the colleagues that
come before us with some serious concerns on infrastructure, as
you know, Michigan, lord knows our infrastructure is legendary.
And it comes from--a great deal from the failure to invest in
infrastructure during the downturn.
So while we are talking about increased Federal investment
in infrastructure, which was part of the meeting yesterday, we
need to emphasize to States and communities they are also
responsible for investing in infrastructure. We cannot end up
in a situation where they expect the Federal coffers to totally
fix the problems that have been neglected. There were State and
local assets.
So as we have this conversation, I would encourage you and
everyone to have them also with their State legislators.
You said the Governor is moving forward on plans there so
that, in fact, we marry local community resources, potentially
P3s, with Federal money to maximize infrastructure and not
expect that we are able to solve it here because, frankly, I
don't believe we are.
Mr. Himes. Well, I will just comment, Mr. Mitchell. I
couldn't agree with you more, that this is a whole-of-
government, whole-of-society problem. And yes, municipalities
and States need to do their part.
Where I come from, I can throw a rock and hit the State
next door. And my State, small State of Connecticut, we are
deeply integrated with Rhode Island, with Massachusetts, and
with New York and New Jersey.
We are a great country, partly because we solve these
problems with the single-biggest instrument that this Nation
has, which is the Federal Government. So I couldn't agree more
that this is a whole-of-government problem. But the Federal
Government is going to need to step up in a big way.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. I
thank the gentleman for his observation.
Twenty-eight States have substantially raised their user
fees in one form or another over the last 4 years. But the
Federal Government hasn't increased its contribution since
1993. And it is worth about half of what it was back then. So
we have work to do on both ends of this problem.
So I thank the gentleman for his observation. With that,
the gentleman--a former member of the committee, our plant on
the Ways and Means Committee--not in terms of an herb.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeFazio. But our--you know what I mean. Earl is the
number-one advocate for infrastructure and investment on the
Ways and Means Committee.
With that, I recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr.
Blumenauer.
TESTIMONY OF HON. EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I really
appreciate--you pointed out that the States are already moving
forward. We have seen 35 States step up in the last 8 years.
The Federal Government has been missing in action. They rely on
us to do our part, not to do it all for them, but they expect
that we will meet our part.
I had some of my best memories, a Member of Congress, as a
member of this committee. I left reluctantly to go to Ways and
Means to try and work to make sure that we meet our statutory
obligation to finance what you authorize. And that mission
continues today.
I am hopeful that we can take advantage of an opportunity,
whether seemingly is a consensus about the need to spend $2
trillion on infrastructure, but fails time after time after
time, because people don't step up to put the money behind it,
like we have seen at the State and local level.
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee should be--
and every other committee should be--laser-focused on achieving
the $2 trillion level of investment that has been talked about.
I look forward to being your partner on the Ways and Means
Committee to invest in infrastructure, not just by raising the
gas tax, indexing the gas tax, and then replacing the gas tax
with something that is sustainable. We need to have a dedicated
water infrastructure trust fund. We need to expand financing
mechanisms to invest in surface transportation, airports,
public buildings, schools, housing, Superfund cleanup, and
more.
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee should work
to unlock the full potential of the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund. And I know, Mr. Chairman, you have been deeply concerned
with that. We need to uncap the passenger facility charge to
allow local investment in aviation needs. And we need to
accelerate the transition to a sustainable program of road user
charges over the course of the next 12 years to fund our system
based on use, rather than gallons of fuels consumed.
We are facing new challenges now dealing with climate,
mobility options, and this uncertain funding future. We need to
develop a forward-thinking infrastructure bill--and I know that
you are working on that--that continues the expansion of the
Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives program at
the State level while also bringing road user charges to the
Federal level through an expanded national pilot program.
With urban centers booming, communities need tools and
resources necessary to make great places. But those places rely
heavily on the rural-urban connection. Urban America relies on
healthy cities and vice versa. We need to create more equitable
outcomes in terms of transferring State-owned urban roads to
local governments, and advancing complete street policies to
lead to zero deaths for all road users.
We can restore the bicycle and pedestrian funding to a
percentage of the Surface Transportation Block Grant program,
increase funding for transit capital, and meaningful investment
in congestion mitigation and air quality.
We must fix the destructive provision in the recent tax
bill that damages commuter tax benefits, that commuters,
businesses, churches, and nonprofits have relied on for
decades.
And finally, I hope the committee works to integrate new
mobility options as solutions to our most vexing transportation
problems.
Communities should be able to support bike share and other
mobility options to connect people in their first or last mile
to mass transit. Policy-makers at all levels should have a
better understanding of the secondary influence of autonomous
vehicles that are rushing towards us, I think, faster than any
of us expect.
You have a unique opportunity to be at the center of a
meaningful, fully funded transportation package and a forward-
thinking surface transportation reauthorization that looks at
the full range of transportation choices.
As I said, I look forward to being your partner on the Ways
and Means Committee in providing the infrastructure investments
communities need. You have an opportunity to produce a once-in-
a-generation piece of legislation. You have got this consensus
from the White House and Democratic leadership in Congress to
spend $2 trillion. We need to work with you to make sure the
money is there to spend. Otherwise, sadly, you will be spinning
your wheels.
I applaud you, Mr. Chairman, for your untiring effort to
focus on this funding crisis and the opportunities that will be
afforded if we meet it, and I look forward to working with you
so we do.
[Mr. Blumenauer's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Earl Blumenauer, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before this committee today. Some of my best
memories in Congress are serving on the T&I Committee. I left this
committee, which I loved, to go to the Ways and Means Committee to
ensure that the federal government upholds its end of the partnership
to fund infrastructure--that is the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means
Committee, to fund what you authorize. Our mission continues today, and
I am hopeful that our committees can work together to deliver the
infrastructure investments that the American people so desperately
need.
It has been said there is no Democratic or Republican way to fix a
sewer. This committee has long-exemplified that sentiment, and you have
the opportunity to continue that tradition this year. Trump and
congressional Democrats have made a commitment to the American people
for at least $1 trillion for infrastructure. The T&I Committee, and
every other committee, should be laser-focused at achieving this level
of investment in a comprehensive infrastructure package. I look forward
to being your partner on the House Ways and Means Committee to invest
in infrastructure by raising the gas tax, creating a dedicated water
infrastructure trust fund, and expanding financing mechanisms to invest
in surface transportation, airports, public buildings, schools,
housing, Superfund cleanup and more. At the same time, the T&I
Committee should work to unlock the full potential of the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, uncap the Passenger Facility Charge, and
support the transition over the next 12 years to a more stable and
equitable transportation funding system that charges for road use
rather than gallons of fuel consumed.
The United States faces the same challenges as we have in the past,
but we also face new challenges and opportunities with the climate
crisis, new mobility options, and an uncertain funding future. Congress
must develop a forward-thinking surface transportation bill that has
real money behind it. I hope that this committee will endorse the
continuation and expansion of the Surface Transportation System Funding
Alternatives program at the state level while also bringing road user
charges to the federal level through an expanded national pilot
program.
With urban centers booming, communities need the tools and
resources necessary to make great places. Providing continued federal
support for transportation options is critical to the continued success
of urban areas which, as the New York Times recently highlighted \1\,
are also key to the health of rural and small-town America. We can
create safer streets by supporting the transfer of state-owned urban
roads to local governments and advancing complete streets policies that
lead to zero deaths for all road users. We can create more equitable
outcomes by increasing assistance to all modes of transportation:
restoring bicycle and pedestrian funding to a percentage of the Surface
Transportation Block Grant program, increasing funding for transit
capital investment grants, and meaningfully invest in the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program. We must fix the
destructive provisions in the GOP tax bill that damages commuter tax
benefits that commuters, businesses, churches, and nonprofits have
relied on for decades. Finally, I hope that the committee works to
integrate new mobility options as solutions to our most vexing
transportation problems. Communities should be able to support
bikeshare and other mobility options to connect people in their first-
or last-mile to mass transit; policymakers at all levels should have a
better understanding the secondary influences of autonomous vehicles on
transportation, municipal budgets, social equity, land use, urban
design, and the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New York Times. April 23, 2019 ``The Best Way to Rejuvenate
Rural America? Invest in Cities'' Liu and Arnosti.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This committee has a unique opportunity to be in the center of a
meaningful, fully-funded infrastructure package and a forward-thinking
surface transportation reauthorization this Congress. I look forward to
being your partner on the Ways and Means Committee in providing the
infrastructure investments communities need. And I look forward to
working with this Committee to produce a once-in-a-generation reframing
of federal transportation policy.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman for his advocacy and his
encyclopedic knowledge of the--indeed, have a better integrated
system, recognizing all modes, and looking to the future. So
thank you for that.
Do any members of the committee have questions for Mr.
Blumenauer?
OK, seeing none, I thank you for your testimony.
At this point I ask unanimous consent to place in the
record a statement from Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin, who could
not attend today, regarding her concerns, and for Congressman
Peter Welch from Vermont, who also couldn't attend today, but
submitted testimony with his concerns.
[Mr. Welch and Ms. Slotkin arrived later in the hearing and
provided testimony; their prepared statements are on pages 93
and 130, respectively.]
Mr. DeFazio. At this point I am going to yield the chair to
the chair of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Ms.
Norton.
[Pause.]
Ms. Norton [presiding]. Mr. Newhouse, you may begin for 5
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. DAN NEWHOUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Chair Norton, Ranking Member
Graves. It is never a good thing when the chairman of the
committee walks out of the room as you are coming up.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Newhouse. Members of the committee, it is my distinct
honor to be before you today as the committee continues its
consideration of a comprehensive legislative package to address
our Nation's chronic needs and ailing infrastructure.
I come before you to share my earnest belief that any such
effort absolutely must include water infrastructure, including
vital water storage and water conservation projects in order to
face our Nation's serious hydrological challenges.
In recent years, particularly in the West, severe droughts
have threatened water delivery, farm and ranch production, and
our rural way of life. Over the last decade, even with above-
average precipitation in several regions of the United States,
we continue to see drought conditions. Americans across the
country demand a safe and reliable water supply.
With the prospect before us to make serious substantial
steps forward in addressing this chronic need, I am here before
you to implore the committee to not pass up this opportunity to
help serve communities both rural and urban.
To provide a few examples for context, the Colorado River
Basin, despite wet conditions this winter, continues to
experience the longest dry spell in recorded history.
Hydrological conditions in California over the past decade were
the worst the region has seen since the 13th century, if you
can believe that. It is true.
In my own region in the Pacific Northwest we have seen
severe droughts over the past 5 years. In the beginning of
April, a declaration of drought emergency has already been
declared for the Upper Yakima River, the Methow, and Okanagan
Basins, which are all in my district in central Washington.
As you have heard today, the Federal Government's lack of
investments to address these conditions, not only in recent
years but over the past several decades, has left communities
to face severe water challenges essentially on their own.
One example is the Columbia Basin Project. Authorized in
1943, the project authorized over 1 million acres of productive
land for investments to provide a reliable source of water for
the basin. However, for 300,000 of these acres those
investments have not been made. Within this region the Odessa
subarea's groundwater is being withdrawn at a rate beyond the
aquifer's capacity to recharge.
And aquifers in the subarea are quickly declining.
Groundwater is virtually depleted to such an extent that water
must be pumped from wells as deep as 2,400 feet. Water pumped
from such depths, as you can imagine, is hot and has
dangerously high sodium concentrations. Municipal,
agricultural, commercial, industrial, and domestic water
supplies, as well as water quality levels, are so compromised
that this is most certainly and clearly a crisis level.
In 2016 a deep well that supplied a municipal water system
in the city of Lind began to fail. The well pumped white foam
with high fluoride content approximately 80 degrees in
temperature. Other wells are at the point of drawing air.
Irrigation wells near the city of Othello have recorded
temperatures as high as 105 degrees and smelling of sulfur.
High levels of sodium in groundwater used to irrigate our crops
are posing a serious threat to our agricultural sector, and the
city of Othello projects it will run out of water within 3
years.
Madam Chair, I don't say this lightly, but I think I can
safely assume the last thing we want on our Nation's hands is
another Flint-like water crisis for any of our communities. And
I have got to tell you that my constituents in these rural
towns are absolutely concerned, and rightly so, that we are not
far off from seeing just that.
In closing, I again respectfully urge the committee to take
this opportunity to include water storage, conservation, and
water delivery systems as policies and processes to streamline
the construction and implementation of water projects in any
comprehensive infrastructure package considered. The Federal
Government has fallen behind in investing in our Nation's water
infrastructure and we must prevent further crises from plaguing
communities in the West and across the country. With
investments in our water infrastructure we can ensure that our
constituents, our agricultural community, and the Nation have a
long-term and reliable water supply for generations to come.
Madam Chair, I sincerely thank you for your consideration.
[Mr. Newhouse's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dan Newhouse, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Members of the Committee,
It is an honor to be before you today as the Committee continues
its consideration of a comprehensive legislative package to address our
nation's chronic needs and ailing infrastructure. I come before you to
share my earnest belief that any such effort absolutely must include
water infrastructure, including vital water storage and water
conservation projects, in order to face our nation's serious
hydrological challenges.
In recent years, particularly in the West, severe droughts have
threatened water delivery, farm and ranching production, and our rural
way of life. Over the last decade, even with above-average
precipitation in several regions of the United States, we continue to
see drought conditions. Americans across the country demand a safe and
reliable water supply. With the prospect before us to make serious,
substantial steps forward in addressing this chronic need, I am here
before you to implore the Committee to not pass up this opportunity to
help to serve communities--both rural and suburban.
To provide you a few examples for context, the Colorado River
Basin, despite wet conditions this winter, continues to experience the
longest dry spell in recorded history. Hydrological conditions in
California over the past decade were the worst the region has seen
since the 13th century. In my own neck of the woods in the Pacific
Northwest, we have seen severe droughts over the past five years. In
the beginning of April, a declaration of drought emergency has already
been declared for the Upper Yakima River, Methow, and Okanogan basins
in my District in Central Washington.
The federal government's lack of investments to address these
conditions, not only in recent years but over the past several decades,
has left communities to face severe water challenges essentially on
their own. One example is the Columbia Basin Project. Authorized in
1943, the project authorized over 1 million acres of productive land
for investments to provide a reliable source of water for the Basin.
However, 300,000 of these acres of land are underutilized. Within this
region, the Odessa Subarea's groundwater is being withdrawn at a rate
beyond the aquifer's capacity to recharge, and aquifers in the Subarea
are quickly declining. Groundwater is virtually depleted to such an
extent that water must be pumped from wells as deep as 2,400 feet.
Water pumped from such depths is hot and has dangerously high sodium
concentrations.
Municipal, agricultural, commercial, industrial, and domestic water
supplies--as well as water quality levels--are all so compromised that
this is most certainly and clearly at crisis-level. In 2016, a deep
well that supplied a municipal water system in the City of Lind began
to fail. The well pumped white foam, with high fluoride content,
approximately 80 degrees in temperature. Other wells are at the point
of drawing air. Irrigation wells near the City of Othello have been
recording temperatures as high as 105 degrees and smelling of sulfur.
High levels of sodium in groundwater used to irrigate our crops are
posing a serious threat to our agriculture sector, and Othello projects
it will run out of water in about three years, or sooner.
Mr. Chairman, I don't say this lightly, but I think I can safely
assume the last thing we want on our nation's hands is another Flint-
like water crisis for any one of our communities, and I've got to tell
you that my constituents in these rural towns are absolutely
concerned--and rightly so--that we are not far off from seeing just
that in these areas.
In closing, I again respectfully urge the Committee to take this
opportunity to include water storage, conservation, and water delivery
systems--as well as policies and processes to streamline the
construction and implementation of water projects--in any comprehensive
infrastructure package considered. The federal government has fallen
behind in investing in our nation's water infrastructure and we must
prevent further crises from plaguing communities in the West and across
the country. With investments in our water infrastructure, we can
ensure that our constituents, our agricultural community, and the
nation have a long-term and reliable water supply for generations to
come. I sincerely thank you for your consideration.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much for that testimony--very
troubling in many ways.
Does any member of the committee wish to question?
Yes?
Mr. Garamendi. Madam Chair, if I might?
Ms. Norton. You have 2 minutes.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Newhouse, your point about water
infrastructure is absolutely correct, in my view. Could you
expand a little bit on water storage systems, the kinds of
things that we need to do and how we might accomplish those
water storage systems, both surface as well as aquifer?
Mr. Newhouse. Well I can tell you--and thank you, Mr.
Garamendi, for your question. I can tell you in my own district
we have--we rely on the snowpack in the Cascade Mountains for
our irrigation and domestic industrial use of water. We have
five reservoirs on the Yakima River Basin. We have not built
additional storage since 1933.
And, as you can imagine, populations have increased since
then, demands for the use of water have increased,
environmental needs for fish and other things have increased.
We have just not kept pace. We need additional storage,
additional delivery systems, be able to take more conservation
practices more seriously, all kinds of things that have to be
accomplished in order for us to meet a growing demand for water
in an ever-increasing frequency of droughts in our area.
Mr. Garamendi. I would like to draw the attention of the
committee to a bill that we passed 3 years ago called The WIIN
legislation, water infrastructure legislation. In that
legislation, there has been the authorization for significant
surface and aquifer storage facilities. It needs to be updated
and renewed, and I would hope this committee would take that up
as we go forward. I look forward to working with you, Mr.
Newhouse, on making that possible so that we can continue to
build the storage systems that are necessary.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you very much for that observation.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi. Are there any other
questions?
If I may say so, Mr. Newhouse, there is about to be more
time for climate change. I wonder if you think some of the
extreme results you are seeing have anything to do with changes
in climate in your State.
Mr. Newhouse. Well, I would say that, for instance in the
State of Washington, I think our precipitation levels are
relatively stable, but the form of that precipitation is coming
more in rain instead of snow. And like I said, for our part of
the State we would rely on that snowpack. For a lot of
different reasons that is happening. Rising temperatures is one
of those.
Ms. Norton. Warming. Thank you very much for that
testimony.
Mr. Wittman of Virginia?
TESTIMONY OF HON. ROBERT J. WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton and Ranking
Member Graves. Thank you for the opportunity today. And I
represent the First Congressional District of Virginia, which
is home to some of the most unique transportation challenges in
the country.
The First Congressional District spans the I-95 corridor in
northern Virginia, which includes the worst traffic hotspot in
the Nation, all the way down to the Northern Neck and Middle
Peninsula, which includes some of the most neglected rural
roads and bridges in the State of Virginia. The National
Capital Region is also home to one of the most strained public
transportation networks in the country, which includes the
Virginia Railway Express, Metro, Amtrak, Ronald Reagan
International and Dulles International airports. Also right
outside of my district is the Port of Virginia, which serves
all 48 contiguous States and faces an urgent need for
expansion.
I would like to take this time to highlight transportation
and infrastructure issues important to my district and to the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
Addressing the congestion issue along the I-95 corridor is
essential. I believe Congress can and should do more to provide
adequate resources to leverage the State's investment to
address the issues on I-95. Congress must prioritize public-
private partnerships and innovative modern-day technologies.
An important component to reducing traffic congestion in
northern Virginia is commuter rail. Long Bridge, which spans
the Potomac River between Virginia and DC, is a critical
gateway between southeast and northeast rail networks.
Constituents in my district rely on the services of Amtrak and
the Virginia Railway Express, better known as VRE, to commute
throughout DC and northern Virginia. The current Long Bridge
structure is the primary constraint limiting the VRE's ability
to operate more passenger trains that could significantly
reduce traffic in northern Virginia. Healthy investments in
Federal formula programs will support the VRE's ongoing and
future investments to expand their service.
My constituents, as well as Members of Congress, rely on
the services provided by the Ronald Reagan International
Airport and Dulles International Airport. The region and Nation
benefit from the successes of DCA and IAD. Congress should
support sustainable funding mechanisms to allow these airports
to make critical investments in safety, security, and
efficiency. Also, maintaining the current slot and perimeter
allotment at DCA is important to the stability of the region.
The Port of Virginia, located right outside of my district,
is one of the largest and busiest ports on the eastern
seaboard. It manages cargo that is shipped to all 48 contiguous
States, and increased shipping traffic and larger vessels are
straining the port's current capacity. At its current depth and
width, the port is experiencing an urgent need to deepen and
expand its channels. I would like to thank the committee for
its work on WRDA 2018, which fully authorized the port to
deepen the Norfolk Harbor to 55 feet and widen the Thimble
Shoals Channel to 1,400 feet. Continued Federal resources are
needed to support the over $350 million invested by the State
of Virginia for navigation improvements already underway at the
port.
Lastly, expanding access to high-speed internet is critical
to economic development and growth in our entire Nation, but
very important also to Virginia and to the areas within the
First Congressional District. As cochair of the House Rural
Broadband Caucus I have made expanding broadband access in
rural areas a top priority. Currently, burdensome regulations
are hindering shovel-ready projects from providing broadband
access to unserved populations throughout the country. By
streamlining our Federal permitting processes, the committee
can help better connect the more than 23 million Americans with
little or no access to broadband to our digital economy. This
helps our local economies, helps our education system, and also
helps in healthcare access in these underserved areas of the
Nation.
I would like to thank both you, Chairwoman Norton, Chairman
DeFazio, and Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
committee for the opportunity to testify today. As you can see,
my district faces a number of unique and substantial
infrastructure challenges. And I look forward to working with
you to solve these issues to grow our economy and to promote
jobs and to identify sources of funding for the continual
effort to build and to rebuild our Nation's transportation and
infrastructure.
[Mr. Wittman's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert J. Wittman, a Representative in
Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia
Intro
Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves,
I represent the First District of Virginia, which is home to some
of the most unique transportation challenges in the country. The First
District spans the I-95 Corridor in Northern Virginia, which includes
the worst traffic hot spot in the nation, all the way down to the
Northern Neck and Middle Peninsula, which includes some of the most
neglected rural roads and bridges in the State of Virginia. The
National Capital Region is also home to one of the most strained public
transit networks in the country, which includes the Virginia Railway
Express (VRE), METRO, Amtrak, Ronald Reagan International (DCA) and
Dulles International Airports (IAD). Also, right outside of my district
is the Port of Virginia, which services all 48 contiguous states and
faces an urgent need for expansion.
I would like to take this time to highlight transportation and
infrastructure issues important to my district and Virginia.
Addressing the congestion issue along the I-95 corridor is
essential. I believe Congress can and should do more to provide
adequate resources to leverage the state's investments to address the
issues on I-95. Congress must prioritize public-private partnerships
and innovative modern-day technologies.
An important component to reducing traffic congestion in Northern
Virginia is commuter rail. Long Bridge, which spans the Potomac River
between Virginia and DC, is a critical gateway between southeast and
northeast rail networks. Constituents in my district rely on the
services of Amtrak and the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) to commute
throughout D.C. and Northern Virginia.
The current Long Bridge structure is the primary constraint
limiting VRE's ability to operate more passenger trains that could
significantly reduce traffic in Northern Virginia. Healthy investments
in federal formula programs will support VRE's ongoing and future
investments to expand their service.
My constituents as well as Members of Congress rely on the services
provided by Ronald Reagan International (DCA) and Dulles International
Airport (IAD). The region and nation benefit from the successes of DCA
and IAD. Congress should support sustainable funding mechanisms that
allow these airports to make critical investments in safety, security
and efficiency. Also, maintaining the current slot/perimeter allotment
at DCA is important to the stability of the region.
The Port of Virginia, located right outside of my district, is one
of the largest and busiest ports on the eastern seaboard. It manages
cargo that is shipped to all 48 contiguous states. Increased shipping
traffic and larger vessels are straining the Port's current capacity.
At its current depth and width, the Port is experiencing an urgent need
to deepen and expand its channels.
I want to thank the committee for its work on WRDA 2018, which
fully authorized the port to deepen the Norfolk Harbor to 55 feet and
widen the Thimble Shoals Channel to 1400 feet. Continued federal
resources are needed to support the over $350 million invested by the
state of Virginia for navigation improvements already underway at the
Port.
Lastly, expanding access to high-speed internet is critical to
economic development and growth in our nation. As Co-Chair of the House
Rural Broadband Caucus I have made expanding broadband access in rural
areas a top priority. Currently, burdensome regulations are hindering
shovel-ready projects from providing broadband access to unserved
populations throughout the country. By streamlining our federal
permitting processes, the committee can help better connect the more
than 23 million Americans with little or no access to broadband, to the
digital economy.
I want to thank Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and
Members of the committee for this opportunity to testify today. As you
can see, my district faces unique and substantial infrastructure
challenges. I look forward to working with you to help solve these
issues, continue to grow our economy, and promote jobs.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much for that testimony.
Does any Member have questions for Mr. Wittman?
Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Congressman Wittman, when you talk about the permitting
issues and the delays, is it just a permitting issue or is it
other delays that come about because of actions taken once a
project has started?
Mr. Wittman. It is actually a combination of both. Some of
them are the multiple levels of permitting processes that have
to go through that, instead of occurring simultaneously, have
to occur one upon the other. So it takes a longer period of
time.
So one agency has to finish their approval process before
another one can start, instead of all of it being done
concurrently. That is one place where you could fix things
immediately.
The other is sort of the back-and-forth, what I call the
tennis match between the applicant and the reviewer. Instead of
doing it all at one time and saying, here, all the feedback and
requirements that we look at with your plans, and making that
at one time, what happens is it is a series of back and forth,
which can add months and sometimes years to these projects.
So I would say those areas are the places where we can most
easily streamline the process: have a concurrent review process
among all agencies, and then require a single opportunity for
feedback and adjustments to a plan or an application in order
for approval.
Mr. Palmer. One of the things that I have come across--and
prior to running a think tank for 25 years I worked for two
international engineering companies, and have been involved at
the State level--is having to go to multiple locations to get
permits, where if we can work out an agreement with the Federal
Government and State and local governments so that you--it is a
one-stop shop----
Mr. Wittman. Exactly.
Mr. Palmer. The costs there are a little harder to
calculate, but what you are dealing with is lost opportunity
cost.
The other side of the coin, though, is once a project
starts, having something that interferes with it, that halts
the construction, leaves contractors in the field, and you are
having to pay for that. That is an enormous expense. We have
seen this in a number of cases.
A couple that I cite on a regular basis, our--Texas, there
was a State road that was 2\1/2\ miles, and they were widening
the road. It was delayed for 33\1/2\ months. It had added
almost $4 million, just in delay costs.
There was U.S. Highway 59, 2.7 miles, I think it was. They
were adding two more lanes--and it is a very short distance,
2.7 miles--delayed for 5 years that added almost $18 million.
And the last one was an interstate project, they were
adding an interchange, it was 1\1/2\ miles, it was delayed for
11 months, but the delay costs were $447,000.
You are seeing that across the board with everything from
roads and bridges to expanding broadband to mass transit, which
really eats up our infrastructure money because all of that is
money that should be going to infrastructure.
I appreciate your coming to the committee today, and I
yield back.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman points out a real problem. And to
the extent that some of these reviews can be done
simultaneously, and the notion of loss of money, particularly
considering the Congress has been reluctant to put money up in
the first place, is, I agree, egregious and shameful.
Are there any other questions?
I want to say, Mr. Wittman, I listened closely to your
testimony because I am, indeed, at the center of your region,
so I took everything you said personally, and I thank you for
coming.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. I am pleased to hear next
from Ms. Shalala from Florida.
TESTIMONY OF HON. DONNA E. SHALALA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Ms. Shalala. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, Mr.
Palmer, committee members. Thank you for the invitation to
testify on the issues of importance to my constituents as the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee develops its
legislative agenda.
I want to begin by giving you some numbers. Since 1950 the
sea level in south Florida has risen 8 inches. It is only
speeding up. By 2030 the sea level in south Florida is
projected to rise up to 12 inches, and by 2100 perhaps 80
inches. According to U.N. projections the average temperature
of the planet will rise 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of
the century. This will cause a sea level rise that will
virtually submerge all of south Florida. If we continue to do
nothing on climate change, my community, as we know, will
disappear. Actually, my district will disappear.
We have a moral obligation to mitigate and adapt
immediately, as we are already seeing the effects of climate
change and sea level rise. It no longer takes a strong
hurricane to flood our streets. They now flood just from a
particularly high tide, such as the king tides. In fact, tidal
flooding has become three times as common in south Florida in
just the past 19 years, causing so-called sunny day flooding.
When people can't get to work because the streets are under
water, when tourists can't walk around to shops and
restaurants, when children can't go to school, our economy and
our futures suffer. This flooding is putting even our most
basic human necessities at risk.
Ninety percent of south Florida's drinking water comes from
the underground Biscayne aquifer. Because of Florida's porous
limestone bedrock and the diversion of fresh waterways as sea
levels rise, salt water reaches further inland and our drinking
water is seriously threatened. If we do not address sea level
rise through infrastructure, this saltwater intrusion will
destroy our only source of drinking water long before Miami is
under water.
And with hurricane season around the corner, we are already
bracing for the worst, with the most powerful storms causing
more destruction than ever before. Category 4 and 5 hurricanes
are projected to be at least 45 percent more common because of
rising ocean temperatures. Combined with higher sea levels when
these storms make landfall, they don't just flood roads and
stop traffic; they destroy homes and lives. Hurricane Irma
caused $50 billion of damage to south Florida. Hurricane Maria
caused the deaths of 3,000 Puerto Ricans. But through
legislation from this committee we can combat rising sea levels
and be more prepared for looming threats.
Clearly, climate change and sea level rise are
environmental issues. Clearly, they are public health issues.
And today I will make the case that climate change and sea
level rise are infrastructure issues at the most basic level.
What is the point of investing in infrastructure that will
be underwater in 10 years? We have a real opportunity to use
climate-smart infrastructure to prepare for higher sea levels,
mitigate the effects of climate change, and protect our
communities. So I ask my colleagues on this committee to make
sea level rise and climate resilient infrastructure a
fundamental component of their infrastructure legislation.
We have already had success designing effective
infrastructure projects in Miami that are actionable and
scalable to the national level. In my district, the city of
Miami Beach has raised much of its public roads by 2 feet, and
are considering zoning adjustments to raise base flood level
elevations for new construction.
Miami Beach has spent $500 million installing massive water
pumps that can move 30,000 gallons of water a minute from the
streets into the ocean, draining over 7 inches of water a day.
Combining these projects with natural green infrastructure can
result in even better and more environmentally friendly
results.
Miami Beach completed a dune restoration project along the
beach's dunes which are beachside habitats for flora and fauna,
minimize coastal erosion, and help protect against storm
surges. Similar, dune restoration projects across the coast
would provide substantial protections from storm surges.
Public parks are also effective green infrastructure
projects, as they can absorb many times more water than
concrete, helping to prevent flooding, while providing green
spaces for communities.
In addition to raising or reinforcing sea walls,
constructing natural sea walls from coral or oyster reefs is
often even more effective as a solution, as these barriers only
grow stronger over time. And south Florida's mangroves and
other marine flora, which are similarly at risk by rising sea
levels, can be effective ways of lessening wave impacts on
coastlines.
Restoring fresh waterways to the ocean such as the diverted
rivers and canals from central Florida can combat saltwater
intrusion into the drinking water in Florida and other coastal
communities.
Ultimately, this committee has the opportunity to address
sea level rise and protect communities across the country by
integrating projects such as these into your infrastructure
bills. We can't wait.
My district and many others are already seeing the
disastrous effects of sea level rise, as homes and lives are
destroyed by flooding and storms. I hope you will address sea
level rise with the seriousness it demands. Thank you.
[Ms. Shalala's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Donna E. Shalala, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Florida
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and Committee members,
thank you for the invitation to testify on the issues of importance to
my constituents as the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
develops its legislative agenda.
I want to begin by giving you some numbers:
Since 1950, the sea level in South Florida has risen 8 inches, and
it is only speeding up. By 2030, the sea level in South Florida is
projected to rise up to 12 inches, and by 2100, perhaps 80 inches.
According to UN projections, the average temperature on the planet
will rise by 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. This
will cause a sea level rise that will virtually submerge all of South
Florida.
If we continue to do nothing on climate change, my community, as we
know it, will disappear.
We have a moral obligation to mitigate and adapt immediately, as we
are already seeing the effects of climate change and sea level rise.
It no longer takes a strong hurricane to flood our streets; they
now flood just from a particularly high tide--such as the King tides.
In fact, tidal flooding has become three times as common in South
Florida in just the past 19 years, causing so-called sunny day
flooding.
When people can't get to work because the streets are underwater,
when tourists can't walk around shops and restaurants, when children
can't go to school, our economy and our future suffer.
This flooding is putting even our most basic human necessities at
risk.
90 percent of South Florida's drinking water comes from the
underground Biscayne Aquifer.
Because of Florida's porous limestone bedrock and the diversion of
fresh waterways, as sea levels rise, salt water reaches further inland
and our drinking water is seriously threatened.
If we do not address sea level rise through infrastructure, this
salt water intrusion will destroy our only source of drinking water
long before Miami is underwater.
And with hurricane season around the corner, we are already bracing
for the worst, with more powerful storms causing more destruction than
ever before.
Category 4 and 5 hurricanes are projected to be at least 45% more
common because of rising ocean temperatures.
Combined with higher sea levels, when these storms make landfall,
they don't just flood roads and stop traffic, they destroy homes and
lives.
Hurricane Irma caused $50 billion of damage to Florida.
Hurricane Maria caused the deaths of 3000 Puerto Ricans.
But with thorough legislation from this Committee, we can combat
rising sea levels and be more prepared for these looming threats.
Clearly, climate change and sea level rise are environmental
issues. Clearly, they're public health issues. And today, I will make
the case that climate change and sea level rise are infrastructure
issues.
At the most basic level, what is the point of investing in
infrastructure that will be underwater in 10 years?
We have a real opportunity to use climate-smart infrastructure to
prepare for higher sea levels, mitigate the effects of climate change,
and protect our communities.
So I ask my colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure to make sea level rise and climate resilient
infrastructure a fundamental component of their infrastructure
legislation.
We have already had success designing effective infrastructure
projects in Miami that are actionable and scalable to the national
level.
In my district, the City of Miami Beach raised many of its public
roads by two feet and is considering zoning adjustment to raise base
flood elevations for new construction.
Miami Beach spent $500 million installing massive water pumps that
can move 30,000 gallons of water a minute from streets into the ocean,
draining over 7 inches of water a day.
Combining these projects with natural ``green'' infrastructure can
result in even better--and more environmentally friendly--results.
Miami Beach completed a dune restoration project along the beaches.
Dunes, which are beach side habitats for flora and fauna, minimize
coastal erosion and help protect against storm surges. Similar dune
restoration projects across the coasts would provide substantial
protections from storm surges.
Public parks are also effective green infrastructure projects, as
they can absorb many times more water than concrete, helping to prevent
flooding while providing green spaces for communities.
In addition to raising or reinforcing sea walls, constructing
natural sea walls from coral or oyster reefs is often an even more
effective solution, as these barriers only grow stronger with time.
And South Florida's mangroves and other marine flora, which are
similarly at risk by rising sea levels, can be effective ways of
lessening wave impacts on coastlines.
Restoring fresh waterways to the ocean, such as the diverted rivers
and canals from central Florida, can combat saltwater intrusion into
drinking water in Florida and other coastal communities.
Ultimately, this Committee has the opportunity to address sea level
rise and protect communities across the country by integrating projects
such as these into your infrastructure bills.
We cannot wait. My district, and many others, are already seeing
the disastrous effects of sea level rise, as homes and lives are
destroyed by flooding and storms.
I hope you will address sea level rise with the seriousness it
demands.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Shalala. I
must say that I have seen pictures of the--you described that
never goes away in parts of Florida. In a real sense it seems
to me that your State is on the front lines of climate change.
Are there other areas of Florida like your district that will
disappear if we do not move more aggressively on climate
change?
Ms. Shalala. Yes, there is no question about it. And you
know, there are no climate deniers in south Florida. Our very
conservative Republican Governor is very much focused on
protecting the Everglades and some of the other elements of
this.
And so what we are simply saying is that, as part of the
infrastructure bill, we have to consider these issues.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. Are there any questions from Members
for this witness, the gentlelady from Florida?
Ms. Wilson. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank
you, Representative Shalala, for bringing this issue to the
committee. I am sure that this will be one of our main targets.
And the question was asked will other parts of the State
disappear. And we know that Key West, which has a member on
this committee, she has already approached us about climate
change in Key West. And it will disappear, Madam Chair, it will
disappear, just like parts of Miami Beach.
And I want to really commend the mayors of Miami Beach and
the commissions of Miami Beach that have taken this so
seriously, and have invested millions of dollars reinforcing
Miami Beach and making it harder and taller and stronger
against flooding, and spending their own money that they
brought forth.
So it should be incumbent upon this committee and Congress
to match that, and not only match that, but match all the needs
of the State of Florida and other places. I am sure that
California has some concerns about climate change.
But this is great that you came here today to put this on
our radar, and your presentation was taken very seriously.
Thank you.
Ms. Shalala. Thank you very much.
Ms. Norton. I thank the gentlelady. Are there any other
questions from members of the committee?
At this time, I would like to ask Mr. Larsen to assume the
chair.
Mr. Larsen [presiding]. Oh, thanks. The Chair recognizes
Mr. Peters for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. SCOTT H. PETERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member,
for hosting this day. I would like to highlight four issues
that affect my district in the country, as a whole: ongoing
sewage spills along the U.S.-Mexico coastal border; disaster
preparedness and resiliency; issues of public transportation;
and then the transportation of spent nuclear waste.
First, cross-border pollution. Since at least 1944 the
Federal Government has tried and failed to stop flows of
treated and untreated sewage in the United States from the
Tijuana River in Mexico. And it has not been for lack of
trying. I want to thank the committee for its past efforts in
2000 and 2004, and a hearing in 2007 to address the problem.
However, we are still dealing with the problem now at
unprecedented levels: over 143 million gallons of raw sewage
was discharged in one spill alone.
Mexico's sewer and infrastructure cannot keep pace with
Tijuana's fast-growing population. And until it does, we are
going to keep experiencing these spills. This week I cosigned a
letter with the San Diego delegation and Senators Feinstein and
Harris urging the International Boundary and Water Commission,
BWIP, the EPA, the Army, the Secretary of State, and Customs
and Border Protection to coordinate their efforts to find a
permanent solution that addresses the root cause of both
immediate and long-term pollution issues along the border.
Advances in water resource technology allow us to think
about wastewater as a commodity. We can use it to generate
renewable energy, fertilizers, and other valuable byproducts.
And, as you know, BWIP is unique among Federal funding
programs because it is the only Federal program that can fund
projects on both sides of the border. Since the program began
in 1997 it has provided hundreds of thousands of U.S.
households along the border with adequate drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure. And BWIP was initially funded with
$100 million per year. However, it had been reduced to zero
over the past 20 years to less than $10 million. We need to
make substantial investments in projects along the U.S. and
Mexico border, investments commensurate with the seriousness of
the problem.
The San Diego delegation stands ready to work with you to
finally eliminate the transboundary sewage pollution problem.
The second pressing issue for my district and the country
is natural disasters, particularly wildfires, as they have
become more common as climate change wreaks havoc on the
environment. I have offered two bills under this committee's
jurisdiction to help communities prepare for future natural
disasters.
I introduced the bipartisan Strengthening the Resiliency of
our Nation on the Ground, or the STRONG Act, with Congresswoman
Elise Stefanik. The STRONG Act would establish a central agency
and information center to combine the expertise of local,
State, and Federal agencies in developing short- and long-term
resiliency best practices for communities. We know that for
every dollar invested in preparedness and resiliency we save $6
in restoration following a disaster. This bill will give
communities the tools they need to plan ahead and increase
their resiliency, which will save lives and reduce costs in the
long run.
I also introduced the DISASTER Act with my colleague,
Congressman Mark Meadows. This bill would require the OMB to
use data it already has to produce an annual report quantifying
the disaster-related assistance provided by the Federal
Government each year. Currently we don't bother to do that. It
is important to do.
Third, I want to stress the importance of investing in
public transportation that actually prioritizes decongesting
our roads, increases sustainability, and supports regional
housing planning. I urge the committee to continue to improve
transit infrastructure to encourage more commuters to take
public transportation and reduce vehicle-miles traveled.
The Federal Government can only support a limited number of
new projects. We have to prioritize those projects that will
generate the ridership that will demonstrably offer automobile
alternatives and minimize greenhouse gas emissions. To this
end, we need to ask local and State governments, in exchange
for the massive Federal investments we are making in local
communities, to commit to increasing density and to build
housing and other origins and destinations near and along the
transit quarters that we build.
Finally, a priority of ours is the proper interim and
permanent storage of spent nuclear fuel. In San Diego we have
new spent nuclear waste sitting within 100 miles of the Pacific
Ocean, near a fault line, on a military base in one of the most
populated areas in America. While identifying where the waste
will go is at the Energy and Commerce Committee, on which I
serve, the repository will be useless without the proper
transportation planning and execution. So I want to say that I
look forward to working with this committee in the near future
to identifying the safest ways to transport this waste to its
ultimate resting place.
Thank you again for your time and consideration in these
matters, and I look forward to working with the committee on
these and other issues.
I yield back.
[Mr. Peters' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Scott H. Peters, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves:
Thank you for hosting ``Member Day'' for your colleagues like me
who have important requests for the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee.
I'm here to highlight a few problems that affect my district and
the country as a whole, including ongoing sewage spills along the U.S.-
Mexico coastal border; disaster preparedness and resiliency; and issues
of public transportation, density, and housing.
First, we have the issue of cross border pollution. Since at least
1944, the federal government has tried, and failed, to stop flows of
treated and untreated sewage in the US from the Tijuana river in
Mexico. It has not been for lack of trying. I want to thank the
Committee for its past efforts in 2000, 2004, and a hearing in 2007 to
address the problem. However, we are still dealing with the problem,
now at unprecedented levels--over 143 million gallons of raw sewage was
discharged in a matter of weeks in February of 2017. Mexico's sewer
system infrastructure in Mexico cannot keep pace with Tijuana's fast-
growing population, and until it does, we will keep experiencing these
spills.
Just this week, I signed on to a letter with the San Diego
delegation and Senator Harris and Feinstein, urging the IBWC, EPA, the
Army, Secretary of State and Customs and Border Protection to
coordinate their efforts to find a permanent solution that address the
root causes of both immediate and long-term pollution issues along the
border. The rupture of the Collector Poniente, in southeast Tijuana on
December 10th 2018, is only the most recent example. At the time of the
break, it was leaking roughly seven million gallons per day. Yet we
don't know the current status of repairs. This is just one example of
many urgent problems we must fix.
But we must ensure that all relevant agencies are working together
towards a comprehensive regional solution. Advances in water resource
technology allow us to think about wastewater as a commodity; we can
use it to generate renewable energy, fertilizers, and other valuable
byproducts. As you know, BWIP is unique among federal funding programs
because it's the only federal program that can fund projects on both
sides of the border. Since the program began in 1997, it has provided
hundreds of thousands of U.S. households along the border with adequate
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. BWIP was initially funded
with $100 million per year, however it has been reduced over the last
20 years to less than $10 million. We need to make substantial
investments in projects along the US-Mexico border--investments
commensurate with the seriousness of the problem.
The San Diego delegation stands ready to work with you, and welcome
your ideas and suggestions to finally eliminate the transboundary
sewage pollution problem.
A second pressing issue for my district and the country is natural
disasters, particularly wildfires, as they have become more common as
climate change wreaks havoc on the environment. I have introduced two
bills under this Committee's jurisdiction to help communities prepare
for future natural disasters.
Earlier this year, I re-introduced the bipartisan ``Strengthening
the Resiliency of Our Nation on the Ground Act'' or the STRONG Act,
with Congresswoman Elise Stefanik.
The STRONG Act would do this by establishing a central agency and
information center to combine the expertise of local, state, and
federal agencies in developing short- and long-term resiliency
strategies for communities.
We know that for every dollar invested in preparedness and
resiliency, six dollars are saved in restoration following a disaster.
This bill will give communities the tools to plan ahead and increase
their resiliency, which will save lives and reduce costs in the long
run.
I also introduced the DISASTER Act with my colleague, Congressman
Mark Meadows. This bipartisan bill would require the OMB to use data it
already has to produce an annual report quantifying the disaster-
related assistance provided by the federal government each year.
Currently, the government does not produce a single estimate of how
much we spend on disaster-related assistance. This bill will make sure
our constituents know how tax dollars are spent on disaster relief.
Finally, I would like to stress the importance of investing in
public transportation that prioritizes decongesting our roads,
increases sustainability, and supports regional housing planning.
I urge the Committee to continue to improve transit infrastructure
to encourage more commuters to take public transportation and reduce
vehicle miles traveled. Since the federal government can only support a
limited number of projects, I would encourage prioritizing projects
that will connect or improve service in densely populated areas to
minimize greenhouse gas emissions.
Along the same vein, the federal government needs to coordinate
with local and state governments to ensure federal transit investments
are met with a commitment to increase density and build housing along
transit corridors. Large and small cities across the country struggle
to build enough housing and keep rents affordable for families.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these matters. I look
forward to continuing to work with you on these and other issues.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Peters.
Does the committee have any questions?
I just have one. You noted in your testimony on page 2 that
you don't know yet the current status of repairs to the
Collector Poniente. Do you anticipate getting an answer soon?
Mr. Peters. You know, part of this, Mr. Larsen--thank you
for the question--has to do with the communication, quality of
communication among the two countries, Mexico and the United
States. For 25 years we have had such good relationships with
Mexico. And today we are concerned that some of the rhetoric
coming out of the White House has interfered with that.
In San Diego, we recognize that our border is an
opportunity, not a threat. We want to maintain good
relationships with Mexico. We are trying to keep the quality of
information exchange high between the two countries. But I
don't have a timeline for when we will get that back.
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Mr. Peters. Thank you.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, thank you.
Any other questions?
Thank you, Mr. Peters.
I now recognize Mr. Davis of Illinois for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. DANNY K. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and
members of the committee. I thank you for the opportunity to
highlight my hopes for any transportation and infrastructure
package.
As the chair of the Subcommittee on Worker and Family
Support within the Committee on Ways and Means I am
particularly interested in ensuring that any Federal investment
in transportation and infrastructure includes underrepresented
and vulnerable workers. There are multiple communities of
vulnerable workers who could benefit from inclusion of a
priority within infrastructure work programs, including former
foster youth, youth Job Corps, and Youth Build trainees,
disconnected youth, noncustodial parents involved with child
support, returning citizens, and workers in the SNAP Able-
Bodied Adults Without Dependents program.
Aiding these vulnerable workers and connecting to
infrastructure programs will help set them on a quality career
path and increase their involvement with the labor force. For
example, the Department of Transportation has had the Ladders
of Opportunity Initiative to improve the apprenticeship and
training opportunities for underrepresented or disadvantaged
workers seeking careers in transportation, engineering, or
construction.
Perhaps the committee could prioritize this or other
similar programs to include vulnerable workers in contracts or
cooperative agreements so that they too can benefit from any
Federal investment in infrastructure.
In addition, I ask the committee's consideration for
protecting funds to help low-income workers get to jobs. In my
city of Chicago many low-income workers have trouble getting
from the city to jobs in the suburban communities. There often
are not buses to these jobs. Or, if there are buses, they can
have long travel times and leave before a working parent can
make use of them.
I worked closely with United Parcel Service to set up a
program to help Chicago residents get to Hodgkins, Illinois,
about 30 miles away. These programs are a lifeline for my
constituents so that they can access quality jobs. I am very
interested in funds to provide transportation for low-income
rural and urban workers getting to where the jobs are. I know
that the Job Access and Reverse Commute program, or JARC, was
designed to do just that. But these funds were folded into
other broader programs that have likely decreased their
dedication to help commuters.
I hope that the committee will consider protecting some
funds to help workers get to the jobs, perhaps by pulling JARC
back out, or by establishing a floor or different approach to
dedicate funds to these commuter assistance efforts that are
flexible to meet workers' needs.
Furthermore, as you all know, local areas have multiple
infrastructure needs, including school construction. I know
there is an annual State and local spending gap of $46 billion
a year on school facilities as of December 2015. Chicago Public
Schools reported $3.4 billion in total need, with $1.8 billion
in critical need. I hope that the committee will consider a
broad definition of infrastructure to accommodate school
construction.
And finally, we have this unique opportunity to invest and
develop cleaner technologies through direct investment or using
the tax code. I look forward to working with the committee to
improve our infrastructure.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to highlight my hopes for any
transportation and infrastructure package.
As the Chair of the Subcommittee on Worker and Family Support
within the Committee on Ways and Means, I am particularly interested in
ensuring that any federal investment in transportation and
infrastructure includes underrepresented and vulnerable workers. There
are multiple communities of vulnerable workers who could benefit from
inclusion of a priority within infrastructure work programs, including:
former foster youth; youth Job Corps and Youth Build trainees;
disconnected youth; non-custodial parents involved with the child
support enforcement system; returning citizens; and workers in the SNAP
Able-Bodied Adults without Dependents program. Aiding these vulnerable
workers in connecting to infrastructure programs will help set them on
a quality career pathway and increase their involvement with the labor
force. For example, the Department of Transportation has had the
Ladders of Opportunity Initiative to improve the apprenticeships and
training opportunities for underrepresented or disadvantaged workers
seeking careers in transportation, engineering or construction. Perhaps
the Committee could prioritize this or similar programs to include
vulnerable workers in contracts or cooperative agreements so that they
too can benefit from any federal investment in infrastructure.
In addition, I ask the Committee's consideration for protecting
funds to help low-income workers get to jobs. In the City of Chicago,
many low-income workers have trouble getting from the City to jobs in
the suburbs. There often are not buses to jobs that our 15 to 30 miles
away. If there are buses, they can have long travel times and leave
before a working parent can make use of them. I worked closely with UPS
to set up a program to help Chicago residents get to Hodgkins, IL,
about 30 miles away. These programs are a lifeline for my constituents
so that they can access quality jobs, and I am very interested in funds
to provide transportation for low-income rural and urban workers
getting to where the jobs are. I know that the Job Access and Reverse
Commute program--or JARC--was designed to do just that, but these funds
were folded into other broader programs. I understand that GAO found
that the vast majority of the study respondents indicated that the JARC
activities had difficulty competing against the other transit needs. I
hope that the Committee will consider protecting some funds to help
workers get to the jobs, perhaps by pulling JARC back out or by
establishing a floor or different approach to dedicate funds to these
commuter assistance efforts that are flexible to meet workers' needs.
Furthermore, as you all know, local areas have multiple
infrastructure needs, including school construction. I know there is an
annual state and local spending gap of $46 billion a year on school
facilities. As of December 2015, Chicago Public Schools reported $3.4
billion in total need, with $1.8 billion in critical needs. I know that
my communities and the City of Chicago could greatly benefit from
additional school infrastructure projects, and I hope that the
Committee will consider a broader definition infrastructure to
accommodate these multiple needs.
Finally, we have this unique opportunity to invest and develop
cleaner technologies through direct investment or using the tax code.
In this new era of technological advances, the U.S. should be the world
leader in electrification of infrastructure and expansion in urban
areas, government building and also rural America and the greater
farming community. New innovation equals new job creation. We have seen
this from 2007 and 2009, when the Congress passed legislation to usher
in new renewable industries, from solar, wind, battery development and
electric vehicles. And yet today, we are seeing close to a million
electric vehicles on the roads while we lack the charging
infrastructure to drive battery electric vehicle from New York to
California without range anxiety. In 2017, only 17% of our electric
generation comes from renewable energy. We should encourage greater
investment in long term storage battery capacity to produce a reliable
smart grid. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and my
colleagues on pushing these initiatives this Congress.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
Any questions for Mr. Davis?
No questions. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Mr.
Gottheimer for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOSH GOTTHEIMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Gottheimer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking
Member, thank you so much. And to the members of the committee,
I really appreciate you hosting this important hearing and for
having us here today.
I am here to discuss the most pressing infrastructure need
in the country: the Gateway Project, which is the literal
passage to nearly the entire Northeast regional economy.
Currently, the North River Tunnel, which is more than a
century old, is the only way in and out of Manhattan for the
200,000 daily passengers that commute between New Jersey and
New York City. This tunnel connects a region that makes up 20
percent of America's GDP.
But here is the problem--and I have seen this with my own
eyes in the tunnel, and I am hopefully going to go back again
Thursday night--the 110-year-old tunnels into New York City are
literally crumbling. There is one track in and one track out.
The chairman of Amtrak said himself that one of the tunnels
would likely have to be shut down within the next 5 years. If
one tunnel does shut down, America would lose $100 million
every single day, according to the Northeast Corridor
Commission. That is a significant impact on the national
economy.
That is why I introduced my bipartisan legislation with
Representative Peter King from New York requiring the U.S.
Department of Transportation to outline their plan for a
doomsday contingency scenario if one of the tunnels under the
Hudson has to shut down. I hope the committee will have a
hearing on H.R. 1667, the Preventing Doomsday Act, so we can
hear from the Department of Transportation on whether it even
has a plan to minimize economic and national security impacts
to the Northeast region by keeping the Gateway Project on
track.
How will people get in and out of New York City every day
who come from my district of northern New Jersey? And how will
they get home at night to see their families?
As you can see from our bipartisan interstate cooperation
on this issue, New York and New Jersey have a long historic
relationship, working relationship, on all matters, especially
those involving transportation and infrastructure. So it was
quite my surprise when last month the New York State
Legislature announced a budget deal that would include a new
congestion tax targeting New Jersey commuters, many people in
my district, who, by the way, already pay New York quite a bit
of income tax for the time they work there.
Under this new plan, when commuters go across the George
Washington Bridge and drive into midtown Manhattan, they will
be whacked, not just with bridge tolls, but now with an
additional congestion tax when they drive south of 60th Street.
That is absurd, double taxation at its finest.
Even more galling, unlike the shared Port Authority
resources from bridge tolls that help New York and New Jersey
together, each nickel of the new congestion tax will go to New
York, to their MTA, to help fix their subways. Nothing to
Jersey, nothing for our shared cooperative relationship.
That is why I introduced bipartisan legislation with
Republican Chris Smith to encourage New York to reconsider
their new outrageous congestion tax on New Jersey commuters.
The Anti-Congestion Tax Act, or, as I like to also call it, the
``Manhattan Moocher Prevention Act,'' takes two concrete
actions.
First, the anti-congestion tax will prohibit the Secretary
of Transportation from awarding any new Capital Investment
Grants to the MTA projects in New York until drivers from all
three New Jersey crossings into Manhattan receive exemptions
from this outrageous congestion tax.
Second, the legislation will amend the Internal Revenue
Code to offer drivers a Federal tax credit at the end of the
year equal to the amount paid in congestion taxes entering
Manhattan from any of the three New Jersey crossings. This will
protect New Jersey drivers from double taxation and help make
things more affordable.
When we work together, New Jersey and New York are a tough
combination to beat. But we need real concrete action to save
our residents' hard-earned money. Today I respectfully ask the
committee, the members of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, to do everything in your power to address these
pressing issues, ensure that our economy stays on track and
stops the congestion tax that is being proposed.
Thank you so much for having me.
[Mr. Gottheimer's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Josh Gottheimer, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New Jersey
Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of
the Committee, for hosting this important for hearing and for having me
here today. I am here to discuss the most pressing infrastructure need
in the country, Gateway, which is the literal passage to nearly the
entire Northeast Regional economy.
Currently, the North River Tunnel, which is more than a century
old, is the only way in and out of Manhattan for the 200,000 daily
passengers that commute between New Jersey and New York City. This
tunnel connects a region that makes up 20% of America's GDP.
But here's the problem: the 110-year-old tunnels into New York City
are literally crumbling. There is one track in and one track out. The
Chairman of Amtrak said himself that one of the tunnels would likely
have to be shut down within the next 5 years.
If the tunnels shut down, America would lose $100 million every
day, according to the Northeast Corridor Commission. According to the
Regional Plan Association, the national economy would lose $16 billion
over a four-year span, equivalent to the loss of 33,000 jobs. If you
are a New Jersey homeowner, a tunnel failure will cost our state $22
billion in property values.
If just one of the tubes in the tunnel goes down, we would
immediately go from 24 trains an hour to six, grinding our busiest
national center of commerce to a halt. This goes without saying: our
trains are critical to New Jersey's economy, to our region's economy,
and to the national economy.
That's why I introduced my bipartisan legislation with
Representative Peter King from New York requiring the US Department of
Transportation to outline their plan for a ``Doomsday'' contingency
scenario if one of the tunnels under the Hudson shuts down. I hope the
Committee will have a hearing on H.R. 1667 so it can hear from the
Department of Transportation on whether it even has a plan to minimize
economic and national security impacts to the Northeast region by
keeping the Gateway Project on track.
Part-time fixes--scotch tape and band-aids--are not enough. It's
time we consider seriously what will happen if we fail to fix them.
I recently had a front-row seat to this problem when touring the
North River Tunnels. I could see every crack and exposed wire. Every
effect of Hurricane Sandy. And there were plenty.
So, here's what I want to know from the DOT, which somehow
downgraded this project to a moderate-to-low priority: What's their
contingency plan when we have to shut one or both tunnels down? It's
likely that the Gateway project won't be built by then, despite our
pleading with the Administration to help get it under way. If the
tunnels are shuttered, how will we deal with this blow to our
region's--and America's--economy? How will people get to work and home?
When 200,000 people move from trains to roads and planes--what will
happen to the transit options which are already congested, overtaxed,
and crumbling.
The RPA anticipates 38,000 additional crashes, and--with increased
smog and pollutants from cars parked on the bridges--100 additional
deaths.
This is a grim picture. America must avoid this Doomsday, and, here
in the greatest country in the world, we all have a responsibility, and
the ability, to do whatever we can, at all levels of government to fix
this tunnel and our crumbling infrastructure. We can't afford delay a
day longer.
Today, I respectfully call on you, the Members of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, to do everything in your
power to address this pressing issue, and ensure that our economy stays
on track.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Gottheimer.
Are there any questions from the committee for Mr.
Gottheimer?
None. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gottheimer. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Larsen. I appreciate your testimony. Next--and just in
order right now we have Representative Khanna, Representative
Haaland, and Representative Cline, in that order.
So the Chair recognizes Representative Khanna for 5
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. RO KHANNA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
ranking member and members of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee for the opportunity to appear before
you.
In 2017 the American Society of Civil Engineers gave our
Nation's infrastructure a rank and grade of a D+. These poor
rankings underscore, as all of you know, how infrastructure is
woefully lacking. And it is a daily inconvenience for residents
and citizens of my district in Silicon Valley, one of the
places that is at the heart of our Nation's innovation.
Transportation is about more than getting from one place to
another. It is about job creation, economic growth, clean air,
and clean water. Our Silicon Valley needs better transportation
and infrastructure if we are going to continue the innovative
work that we are doing.
I support a bold, robust, and comprehensive infrastructure
package along the lines discussed by the Speaker, the
President, and Majority Leader Schumer yesterday, a $2 trillion
level that will make America competitive.
To put this in perspective, members of the committee, China
has built almost 18,000-plus miles of high-speed rail. We have
about 500 miles. China is putting nearly $30 billion in making
sure that everyone in their country is connected to the high-
speed internet. We should, in our country, make sure that we
are staying competitive and providing broadband across this
country.
Those of us in California know that we need sustained
investments. I have a plan that I will offer for a $300 billion
investment in high-speed rail that will connect the major
cities in this country and have hubs to rural America that will
make us competitive with the Chinese.
There is no reason that America shouldn't lead when it
comes to the next generation of technology. We are the only
nation that has landed someone on the moon. We are the only
nation that has put some vehicles on Mars. We should be the
leader when it comes to the next generation of technologies.
Here is how funding could also be spent in my district. We
could establish a mass transit system on Highways 85, 101, and
237 to go where the jobs are. We could have a rapid bus transit
lane in municipalities, and invest in state-of-the-art buses,
and more routes to provide options. We can expand BART to loop
not just to San Jose and Santa Clara, but around the entire
peninsula. We can have additional lanes at the intersection of
Highways 680, 880, and 237, and Mission Boulevard, so that we
aren't congested when people are going to work to Apple,
Google, Tesla, or Facebook, or many of the other companies. We
can continue expanding Amtrak's Capitol Corridor service from
San Jose to get more people to skip the traffic and parking
hassles, and we can build out a truly high-speed rail to
connect our cities and our regions.
Infrastructure, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, are not
partisan issues. This is about making sure America wins the
21st century. I will work with the committee in any way
possible to support your work in making this critical
investment.
[Mr. Khanna's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ro Khanna, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the T&I
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you.
The United States was once among the world leaders in quality
infrastructure. Now, we rank just 11th according to the World Economic
Forum. In the 2017 report by the American Society of Civil Engineers,
the overall assessment of our nation's infrastructure ranked the U.S.
at a D+. These poor rankings underscore how our infrastructure is
woefully lacking and a daily inconvenience to the citizens of Silicon
Valley and other regions across our nation.
I want to be clear that I am talking about infrastructure in its
broadest sense--including not only transportation infrastructure but
also funding for our energy grid, broadband and school buildings. In my
remarks today, I will focus within the jurisdiction of this Committee,
which goes well beyond just highways, bridges, and transit, to also
include aviation, federal buildings, high speed rail, ports, heavy
rail, and our water and sewer systems.
Transportation is about more than getting from one place to
another. It's job creation, economic growth, revitalizing
neighborhoods; improving public health through cleaner air and water;
making our transportation systems safer, redundant, and resilient;
cutting commuter frustration in gridlock, and improving the quality of
life for all Americans while positioning our country to compete and win
in the 21st Century global economy.
Unfortunately, we have not provided adequate funding of our
transportation infrastructure to meet those goals. The Highway Trust
Fund (HTF), which is used to fund the Highway and Mass Transit
Accounts, derives roughly 85 to 90 percent of its revenue from the
``gas tax.'' Without raising it in almost 30 years, these shortfalls
have been filled by transfers from our Treasury's general fund while
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund goes under-utilized.
Federal investment must leverage state, local, and private
investment, not simply replace these other sources of infrastructure
funding as has been proposed.
National Infrastructure Plan
I support a bold, robust, comprehensive, and bipartisan
infrastructure package along the lines of the trillion dollar proposal
proposed by both House and Senate Democrats last Congress. Such a
package would make real investment in our infrastructure and create
millions of good-paying jobs in every district and state. For example,
under the Senate proposal, transportation infrastructure investment
would include:
$140 billion to ensure Highway Trust Fund solvency over
the next decade;
an additional $140 billion to repair our nation's roads
and bridges;
$115 billion to repair and improve public transportation;
$50 billion to modernize and improve our rail
infrastructure;
$40 billion for a new Vital Infrastructure Program (VIP)
to support new transportation infrastructure megaprojects which greatly
improve transportation networks;
$30 billion to promote innovative transportation;
$40 billion to improve our airports and even address
airplane noise, a large problem in the 17th Congressional District of
California;
$25 billion for resilient community development; and
$20 billion in innovative financing tools.
$10 billion for TIGER program expansion;
Such a sustained and large investment would also allow us to
provide:
$115 billion to modernize the nation's drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure systems, along the lines of the Water
Affordability, Transparency, Equity, and Reliability (WATER) Act I co-
led with Rep. Lawrence (D-MI); and
$30 billion for our ports and inland waterways.
These costs are substantial but necessary for this transformation
to make a difference in the lives of almost all Americans. How do we
pay for this investment? There are a variety of responsible ways,
including the following measures:
Returning the top individual tax rate to 39.6%;
Restoring the individual alternative minimum tax to 2017
law;
Restoring the estate and gift taxes primarily benefitting
multi-millionaires and billionaires;
Closing the carried interest loophole; and
Raising the corporate tax rate to 25%.
This should not be a partisan issue. Championing American
competitiveness and success in the 21st Century should be a bipartisan
issue. When people drive over a bridge, they don't think ``Is this a
Republican bridge or is this a Democratic bridge?'' What they are
expecting is ``I can drive over this waterway safely?''
We must remember that we look at a bridge and see the steel beams,
those steel beams are manufactured by people right here in the U.S.
Benefits to the 17th Congressional District
Those of us from California know we desperately need increased and
sustained investments. The Bay Area population has grown twice as fast
in the last five years than it did in the previous ten. Traffic will
only get worse. Within 10-15 years, experts predict complete gridlock
if we don't make substantial investments in mass transit.
I continue to advocate for a multi-modal transportation system,
including mass transit, new buses and more bus routes, ride-sharing
services, and the expansion of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
system. Here is how such additional funding could be spent in my
district:
1. Establish a mass transit system on Highways 85, 101 and 237 to
go to where the jobs are;
2. Build a rapid-bus transit lane in municipalities and invest in
state-of-the-art buses and more routes to provide an option for
everybody and not just those who work at companies with private bus
service;
3. Use ride-sharing plans that make mass transit easily
accessible;
4. Expand the BART loop to San Jose, Santa Clara, and as far as
possible;
5. Add additional lanes at the intersection of Highway 880 and
Highway 237 to make it easier for commuters headed to the peninsula.
Do we want ours to be a legacy of congestion and deteriorating
infrastructure? Or do we want it to be about increased productivity and
additional good-paying jobs?
These solutions, if executed well as part of a responsible national
economic development policy, could make an immediate impact on our
lives by expanding critical infrastructure, growing the local economy,
and bringing good paying jobs to regions all across our nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for the opportunity to
testify before you today. That concludes my statement and am happy to
take any questions you might have.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Representative Khanna, very much for
your comments. Do you have any questions from the committee at
this point?
Hearing none, thank you very much.
The Chair recognizes Representative Haaland from the great
State of New Mexico.
TESTIMONY OF HON. DEBRA A. HAALAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Ms. Haaland. Thank you very much, Chairman, Ranking Member,
and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
discuss infrastructure priorities for my district--the First
Congressional District of New Mexico--the State of New Mexico,
Indian country, and our Nation's public lands.
My Albuquerque area district needs a Federal commitment to
infrastructure to support local investment and economic
development. We need improvements to Paseo Del Norte and Unser
Boulevard, and to replace the Tijeras Arroyo Bridge to support
our booming film industry, which brings thousands of jobs to my
district.
Improvements to roads around the Albuquerque International
Sunport and runways and taxiways will support the Sunport
Economic Development Investment District and connect it to
local universities.
Water infrastructure needs include stormwater management in
Santa Fe Village, the Montano levee on the Rio Grande, and
expanding the storage capacity of Abiquiu Reservoir.
And New Mexicans depend on railroads through reliable long-
haul Amtrak service and the Rail Runner Express, which will
benefit from Positive Train Control investments. I have a more
detailed list that I will submit for the record.
The State of New Mexico is concerned about the Highway
Trust Fund solvency, and I urge you to find a sustainable long-
term solution.
Also, the rapid increase in oil and gas drilling is
creating dangerous conditions on roads throughout our State. I
have a letter from our department of transportation cabinet
secretary about several State priorities that I will submit for
the record.
As one of the first Native American women elected to
Congress and cochair of the Native American Caucus, I urge you
to address the infrastructure needs in Indian country to fully
honor the Federal Government's unique Government-to-Government
relationship with Tribes. The over $50 billion backlog of
Indian country's infrastructure needs is more extreme than off-
reservation communities.
For example, 40 percent of housing on reservations or
Indian communities is deemed substandard, compared to only 6
percent of housing nationwide. Less than half of Indian
country's homes are connected to public sewer systems, and 16
percent lack indoor plumbing.
The infrastructure needs in Indian country also include
$634 million in repairs at dilapidated BIE schools, $392
million in deferred maintenance for a BIA road system that is
still 60 percent dirt and unpaved earth, and the IHS sanitation
facilities construction program, which requires an 80 percent
increase to provide clean drinking water and waste disposal.
And near my district the San Felipe Pueblo needs a bridge
across the Rio Grande, and that is a safety issue. I would like
to submit for the record the Tribal infrastructure report
produced by the National Congress of American Indians, and an
additional list of Indian country infrastructure needs.
Infrastructure funding must also be coupled with financing
mechanisms to establish and strengthen Tribal governmental
infrastructure, private-sector partnerships, and outside
investment in infrastructure on Tribal lands. Tribes lack
parity with States and local governments when it comes to
investing in infrastructure because they are unable to levy
property taxes due to the trust status of their land. I urge
you to address this fundamental injustice so that Native
Americans no longer face the public health and safety hazards
that are prevalent on Indian trust lands today.
As chairwoman of the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Forests, and Public Lands, I know these national treasures have
significant infrastructure needs. I urge you to invest in
roads, trails, marinas, and other infrastructure in our
national forests and parks which support the outdoor recreation
economy through a recreation title in an infrastructure
package.
Finally, I encourage you to address climate change through
infrastructure investments. Native American communities and
those of us in the Southwest face threatened water supplies,
more severe wildfires, and changes to the natural resources we
rely on. I urge you to work with committees across
jurisdictions to ensure that an infrastructure plan reduces
greenhouse gas emissions while creating jobs and economic
opportunities.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
[Ms. Haaland's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Debra A. Haaland, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New Mexico
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss infrastructure
priorities for my district, the State of New Mexico, Indian Country,
and our nation's public lands.
District and State Priorities
My Albuquerque-area district needs a federal commitment to
infrastructure to support local investment in economic development. We
need improvements to Paseo Del Norte and Unser Boulevard and to replace
the Tijeras Arroyo Bridge to support our booming film industry.
Improvements to roads around the Albuquerque International Sunport and
runways and taxiways will support the Sunport Economic Development
Investment District and connect it to local universities. Water
infrastructure needs include storm water management in Santa Fe
Village, the Montano Levee on the Rio Grande, and expanding the storage
capacity of Abiquiu Reservoir. And New Mexicans depend on railroads,
through reliable long-haul Amtrak service and the Rail Runner Express,
which will benefit from Positive Train Control investments. I have a
more detailed list to submit for the record.
The State of New Mexico is concerned about the Highway Trust Fund's
solvency, and I urge you to find a sustainable long-term solution. I
have a letter from our Department of Transportation Cabinet Secretary
about this and other priorities to submit for the record.
Indian Country Priorities
As one of the first Native American women elected to Congress and
Co-Chair of the Native American Caucus, I urge you to address the
infrastructure needs in Indian Country to fully honor the federal
government's unique government-to-government relationship with Tribes.
The over $50 billion backlog of Indian Country's infrastructure
needs is more extreme than off-reservation communities. For example, 40
percent of housing on reservations is deemed ``substandard'' compared
to only 6 percent of housing nationwide. Less than half of reservation
homes are connected to public sewer systems and 16 percent lack indoor
plumbing.
The infrastructure needs in Indian Country also include: $634
million in repairs at dilapidated BIE schools; $392 million in deferred
maintenance for a BIA road system that is still 60 percent dirt and
unpaved earth; and the IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program,
which requires an 80 percent increase to provide clean drinking water
and waste disposal. I would like to submit for the record the Tribal
Infrastructure report produced by the National Congress of American
Indians and an additional list of Indian Country infrastructure needs.
Infrastructure funding must also be coupled with financing
mechanisms to establish and strengthen tribal governmental
infrastructure, private sector partnerships, and outside investment in
infrastructure on tribal lands. Tribes lack parity with states and
local governments when it comes to investing in infrastructure because
they are unable to levy property taxes due to the trust status of
reservation lands. I urge you to address this fundamental injustice so
that Native Americans no longer face the public health and safety
hazards that are prevalent on reservations today.
Public Lands and Climate Change
As Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and
Public Lands, I know these national treasures have significant
infrastructure needs. I urge you to invest in roads, trails, marinas,
and other infrastructure in our national forests and parks, which
support the outdoor recreation economy, through a recreation title in
an infrastructure package.
Finally, I encourage you to address climate change through
infrastructure investments. Native American communities and those of us
in the Southwest face threatened water supplies, more severe wildfires,
and changes to the natural resources we rely on. I urge you to work
with committees across jurisdictions to ensure that an infrastructure
plan reduces greenhouse gas emissions while creating jobs and economic
opportunities.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to
working with you on these important issues.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. For the record, and without
objection, the committee will enter into the record the reports
that you cited in your testimony.
[The information follows:]
Current Priority Infrastructure Projects in New Mexico's First
Congressional District, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Debra A.
Haaland, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Mexico
Current Priority Infrastructure Projects in New Mexico's 1st District
City of Albuquerque ($150 million on listed projects )
(1) Paseo Del Norte and Unser Boulevard Improvements: Design,
construction and purchase of right of way for improvements to Paseo Del
Norte from Calle Nortena to Rainbow Boulevard and Unser Boulevard from
Kimmick Road to Paradise Road. $22 million
(2) UNM-CNM-Sunport Transit Corridor: A high frequency transit
line on Yale, Avenida Cesar Chavez, and University Boulevards between
the Albuquerque International Sunport and the intersection of
University and Menaul. $65 million (Cost from 2014 study)
(3) Albuquerque International Airport and Double Eagle II Airport
Infrastructure: Implement runway, taxiway and aircraft apron
improvements at the Albuquerque International Airport and the Double
Eagle Two Airport. $63 million (projects between 2019 and 2023)
(4) Santa Fe Village Stormwater Management: Construct a stormwater
Interceptor channel in the boundary area of the Petroglyph National
Monument and the Santa Fe Village Neighborhood.
(5) Rio Grande Levee Construction--Montano Levee: Construction of
a levee by the City of Albuquerque, the County of Bernalillo and the
Albuquerque Metropolitan Flood Control District on the west side of the
Rio Grande. $7.2 million
(6) Tijeras Arroyo Bridge Replacement The bridge on Mesa Del Sol
needs to be replaced to accommodate the increased commercial and
residential traffic generated by increased film production and
additional housing. The current bridge structure has been affected by
heavy vehicle traffic and stormwater. $8 million
Bernalillo County ($79.7 million interchanges, roads and levees)
(1) Three interchanges that are key to the Sunport Economic
Development Investment District:
(A) I-25 and Bobby Foster--$22.52 million
(B) Los Picaros Road/University Boulevard $9.1 million
(C) I-25 and Mesa del Sol Boulevard--$38 million
The three interchanges provide the connectivity between a
developing regional business center and growing residential area
located south of Albuquerque Sunport International Airport. The
interchanges will improve the area's freight and logistics capacity and
provide better connections to the established technology businesses.
(2) Sunport Boulevard Extension Bernalillo County requires $3
million to complete funding for the Sunport Boulevard extension. This
road construction is critical to the County's economic development
program and mobility advantages it will provide between I-25,
Albuquerque International Sunport, Broadway Boulevard and Rio Bravo
Boulevard. The extension of Sunport Boulevard west completes the road
way from the I-25 Exit 221 interchange west to Broadway Boulevard. The
extension facilitates efficient and safe flow of traffic to and from
Albuquerque International Sunport.
(3) Rio Grande Levee Construction--Montano Levee: (Listed under
City of Albuquerque) Construction of a levee by the City of
Albuquerque, the County of Bernalillo and the Albuquerque Metropolitan
Flood Control District on the west side of the Rio Grande. $7.2 million
Mid-Region Council of Governments (MRCOG) ($30 million)
(1) Positive Train Control (PTC) New Mexico Rail Runner Express
The Rail Runner received a $29 million grant from the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) in August of 2018 to deploy positive train control
features. The total cost of PTC for the nearly 100-mile corridor from
Belen to Santa Fe is $60 million. MRCOG has a plan for raising the
other funding ($30 million) but additional FRA grant funding would be
of significant help.
Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority ($300 million
next 5 yrs)
The current federal priorities are the expansion of Abiquiu
Reservoir to store more San Juan-Chama and native Rio Grande water.
There is no federal funding required to store the additional water at
the reservoir. The Army Corps of Engineers will have to update the
water management book for the Abiquiu Dam and Reservoir. The WUA expect
expects to expand its water reuse/recycling program starting in late
2019 or 2020. Federal funding for the project comes from the Bureau of
Reclamation's WaterSMART program (Title XVI). In 2017, the WUA
estimated it would invest nearly $300 million on infrastructure between
2019 and 2023.
Letter of April 26, 2019, from Michael R. Sandoval, Cabinet Secretary,
New Mexico Department of Transportation, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Debra A. Haaland, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New Mexico
April 26, 2019.
Representative Deb Haaland,
1237 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Haaland:
The New Mexico Department of Transportation has been reviewing
funding and policy priorities that we would like included in the next
surface transportation legislation. It is our understanding that the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is beginning to craft
the replacement of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST)
Act and is requesting member input by April 30, 2019.
New Mexico relies on the funding provided in the FAST Act in order
to improve our transportation system; however, we are concerned with
having a replacement for the FAST Act enacted prior to expiration of
the FAST Act on September 30, 2020 as well as a long-term funding
source for the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). We are concerned that if a
long-term solution for the HTF is not identified, New Mexico may have
to postpone projects due to a slow-down in reimbursements from the HTF.
II is important that formula-based federal funding provided to states
is increased and continues. It also important to enact a long-term,
sustainable revenue solution for the Highway Trust fund.
We have been working with the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials and we recommend the issues in the
attachment be addressed using the suggested Legislative Text in the
replacement of the FAST Act.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Sandoval,
Cabinet Secretary, New Mexico Department of Transportation.
attachment
ISSUE 1: Stability of the Highway Trust Fund
Current Federal Policy: N/A
Issue: The Highway Trust Fund (HTF) does not currently
allow for continuity and consistency in the Federal-Aid program, and
solvency is the root of this issue. The HTF needs to become robust
enough that it no longer struggles and threatens the transportation
funding that so many states depend upon. This program needs to grow to
continue providing transportation projects that result in great
benefits to our nation. A larger and more stable HTF will provide for
the transportation system that our citizens need.
The challenges resulting from the continued threat of
insolvency are many. In the short-term, continuing resolutions release
obligation limitation piecemeal throughout the year, causing State DOTs
to have difficulty: obligating projects in monthly lettings, leading to
lettings with state funds and the build-up of large AC balances; and
having enough state funds to let projects and make progress payments
while awaiting obligation limitation to become available for federal
reimbursement. In addition, having state funds unnecessarily tied up
while waiting for federal funds delays the ability to begin more
projects using state dollars. In the long term, long-range
transportation planning is difficult when future funding levels in the
HTF are unknown because the DOTs must guess at the level of general-
fund transfers that may be approved. Additionally, State DOTs may be
unnecessarily conservative in funding projects to avoid over-obligating
funds that might have to be covered by the state in the event future
federal reimbursement levels drop.
The HTF is funded through fees assessed to the users of
the highway system, but the fee has not increased in over 25 years, and
thus is not nearly large enough to cover current costs, let alone the
massive reconstruction efforts needed across our country. With more
robust and reliable funding, State DOTs would not have to set aside
state funds to temporarily cover the federal share and could more
strategically utilize available state and federal funding.
AASHTO has provided Congress with numerous alternative
methods to fund transportation at the federal level. Between 2013 and
2018, 56 percent of the states passed legislation to increase their
state gas taxes; we feel the time is right to take this action on a
federal level to shore-up the HTF. It is in the nation's best interest
to provide funding through the HTF to cover our surface transportation
infrastructure needs and ensure that the program becomes a dependable
source of revenue for the next decade.
Recommendation: Stabilize the HTF. Fund the HTF through
long-term solutions that provide funding at levels that meet the demand
of the economic and mobility needs of our citizens. Such solutions
would eliminate the need to use general fund monies to supplement the
HTF.
ISSUE 2: Federal Funding Apportionment Should Not Be Tied to Target
Achievement
Current Federal Policy: The Federal-aid Highway Program
is a Federally-assisted state program that is rooted in Article 1,
Section 8 of the United States Constitution and confirmed by 23 U.S.C
145. Currently, approximately 90 percent of the Federal highway program
funds are distributed to the states by formula. This approach of
emphasizing formula funds has a decades-long track record of success in
supporting long-term capital improvements across the United States.
This approach enables funds to be distributed to states in a stable and
predictable manner and allows the Federal program to efficiently
deliver projects that have been identified and prioritized through the
statewide and metropolitan planning processes.
Issue: 23 CFR 490 implemented the new performance
management statute so that state DOTs are required to establish
performance targets for federal performance measures and report on how
they have made progress on achieving those targets. Current performance
management regulations--correctly--do not require making substantial
progress towards meeting the federal performance management targets to
federal funding apportionment.
Recommendations: While New Mexico Department of
Transportation supports the use of performance management to improve
the transportation system, we remain opposed to using performance
measures and the achievement of federal performance management targets
as the basis for apportioning or allocating federal funds among the
state DOTs. We recommend the federal performance management regulations
be clarified to make clear that a principal purpose of the requirements
is to provide an authoritative source to communicate with decision-
makers and the public on the condition of the national highway system
as a whole and be part of a larger story to communicate the unmet
transportation needs.
ISSUE 3: Emergency and Tow Vehicles
Current Federal Policy: FAST Act, Sec. 1410, Interstate
Weight Limits; 23 USC 127, Vehicle Weight Limitations--Interstate
System, subsections (m) and (r)
Issue: The FAST Act increased the maximum gross vehicle
weight allowance of an emergency vehicle on the Interstate System (and
routes that provide reasonable access to the Interstate System) to
86,000 pounds and exempted heavy-duty tow and recovery vehicles
(regardless of weight) from Federal Interstate weight limits. These
vehicles can create greater load effects in certain bridges than the
previous legal loads. If not appropriately rated and posted (i.e.,
restricted), bridge safety, serviceability, and durability may be
compromised by these vehicles. States recognize the safety and mobility
benefits of facilitating prompt movement of emergency and tow vehicles.
However, these two new weight-limit exemptions are not subject to state
permit authority and are considered ``unrestricted'' exceptions; thus,
every state is now required to re-evaluate the load rating for all
Interstate bridges (and those that provide access to the Interstate)
and post restrictions on those bridges that cannot safely carry these
new maximum unrestricted vehicle loads.
An unintended consequence of the FAST Act is that hundreds--or
potentially thousands--of bridges in each state now must be load-rated
for the higher limits and ``posted'' with any applicable load
restrictions. Furthermore, while the provision for emergency vehicles
includes a stated maximum gross vehicle weight of 86,000 pounds and
requirements as to axle limits, the heavy-duty tow and recovery vehicle
provision does not state a weight limit and allows for the unspecified
weight of a towing and towed vehicle combined, making it impossible for
states to determine how to load rate the bridges and determine which
ones must be posted. The unexpected additional costs associated with
load-rating and posting thousands of bridges will cause financial
burdens on state and local transportation agencies. Additionally,
posting load restrictions on thousands of bridges on the nation's
Interstate System (and reasonable access roads) will likely create
confusion among drivers that could affect the safety of the traveling
public and operators of said emergency and heavy-duty tow and recovery
vehicles. If these vehicles were to be subject to state permit
authority, states would be able to designate appropriate routes,
reducing the number of posted bridges, reducing costs for state and
local governments, protecting bridges, and continuing to facilitate
prompt movement of emergency vehicles to the scenes of emergencies and
prompt clearance of disabled vehicles from roads.
Recommendation: Rescind the FAST Act provisions
concerning emergency vehicles and heavy-duty tow vehicles (23 USC
127(m) and (r)) and allow states to accommodate these vehicles as they
have done successfully prior to the FAST Act, through real-time
permitting or other methods. Another option is to modify 23 U.S.C. 127
(m) and (r) to allow states to apply for FHWA authority to use a permit
system for subsection (m) and subsection (r) vehicles over 80,000 lbs
gross vehicle weight.
Legislative Text:
Section 127 of title 23, United States Code is amended by repealing
subsection (m)(1) and inserting:
``(1) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
a State may issue special permits to overweight covered heavy-duty tow
and recovery vehicles through real-time permitting or similar methods
if such permits are issued in accordance with State law.
Section 127 of title 23, United States Code is amended by repealing
subsection (r) and inserting:
``(r) Emergency Vehicles
(1) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
section, a State may issue special permits to overweight emergency
vehicles through real-time permitting or similar methods if such
permits are issued in accordance with State law.
(2) Emergency vehicle defined.--In this subsection, the term
``emergency vehicle'' means a vehicle designed to be used under
emergency conditions--
(A) to transport personnel and equipment; and
(B) to support the suppression of fires and mitigation of other
hazardous situations.
ISSUE 4: Adoption of Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines
(PROWAG)
Current Federal Policy: 28 CFR 36, Nondiscrimination on
the Basis of Disability by PublicAccommodations and in Commercial
Facilities
Issue: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) strives
to ensure access to the built environment for people with disabilities.
To facilitate this access, the US Access Board is responsible for
developing and updating design guidelines known as the ADA
Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), which focus primarily on facilities
on sites. These guidelines are currently used by the US Department of
Justice and the US Department of Transportation in setting enforceable
standards that the public must follow. However, sidewalks, street
crossings, and other elements in the public right-of-way can pose
different challenges to accessibility. While the current ADAAG
addresses certain features common to public sidewalks, such as curb
ramps, the Access Board determined more than a decade ago that
additional guidance was necessary to address conditions and constraints
unique to public rights-of-way.
Thus, the Access Board has been collaboratively developing
guidelines for facilities within the public rights-of-way--the Public
Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG)--which address
transportation-specific issues, including access for blind pedestrians
at street crossings, wheelchair access to on-street parking, and
various constraints posed by space limitations, roadway design
practices, slope, and terrain. Once these guidelines are adopted by the
US Department of Justice, they will become enforceable standards under
Title II of the ADA. Unfortunately, since the current ``officially
adopted'' guidance is still the ADAAG, which is intended more for
vertical than horizontal construction, there has been uncertainty in
transportation agencies regarding what is or is not acceptable. In
addition, several agencies are being required, as the result of
litigation, to implement suboptimal accessibility solutions that were
truly intended for buildings, not transportation facilities. Adoption
of the PROWAG would provide transportation agencies with solid,
researched solutions for accessibility within their transportation
corridors.
Recommendation: Official adoption of the Public Rights of
Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) is needed to ensure consistency
across the country in the application of accessibility features within
the streetscape. Adoption would also ensure that the horizontal
construction guidelines are used by transportation agencies instead of
the vertical construction guidelines.
Legislative Text:
Section __. ADOPTION OF PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY ACCESSIBILITY
GUIDELINES.--
(a) The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of
Transportation shall adopt the Public Rights of Way
Accessibility Guidelines developed by the U.S. Access Board.
(b) The guidelines adopted under subsection (a) shall become
enforceable standards under Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.
Report entitled ``Tribal Infrastructure: Investing in Indian Country
for a Stronger America,'' by the National Congress of American Indians,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Debra A. Haaland, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New Mexico
The 36-page report is retained in committee files and is available
online at: http://www.ncai.org/NCAI-InfrastructureReport-FINAL.pdf.
List of Indian Country Infrastructure Needs, Submitted for the Record
by Hon. Debra A. Haaland, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Mexico
Indian Country Infrastructure: Address Longstanding Safety Needs and
Unlock Economic Potential
The lack of infrastructure on Indian lands poses a public health
and safety hazard to Indian reservation residents and visitors.
Infrastructure deficiencies and absences also comprise the largest and
longest standing barrier to economic opportunity in Indian Country.
Investing in infrastructure on Indian lands will unlock significant
economic potential, spurring short-term job creation through
construction-related jobs and fostering long-term economic development
by opening doors for Native entrepreneurs. Without working
infrastructure--tribal government economies will continue to lag behind
the rest of America.
Federal infrastructure revitalization proposals must address the
significant unmet infrastructure needs of Indian Country. Direct
federal investments in Indian Country infrastructure should be coupled
with innovative financing mechanisms to establish and strengthen tribal
government-private sector partnerships and outside investment on Indian
lands.
Indian Country Infrastructure Needs
Indian Country's infrastructure backlog exceeds $50 billion,
covering the entire range of basic structures and systems from schools,
housing, and public safety facilities, to roads and bridges, to
telecommunications and water systems. The following items provide some
additional details on the most prolific infrastructure deficiencies
that threaten the health and safety of Indian Country residents and
serve as barriers to economic development.
Indian School Construction
BIE Schools. There are 183 BIE schools and dormitories that serve
48,000 students from K through 12th grade. In 2016, the Office of the
Inspector General at the DOI found that it would cost $430 million to
address immediate facilities repairs in the BIE system. By February
2018, the maintenance backlog in BIE schools had ballooned to over $634
million. The estimated cost for new and replacement construction at BIE
schools stands at $1.3 billion.
See NIEA testimony before the House Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee (Mar. 7, 2019): https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP06/
20190307/109014/HHRG-116-AP06-Wstate-CournoyerD-20190307.pdf
Impact Aid School Construction. The original Impact Aid statute
authorized school construction funding because the circumstances of
school districts located on or near nontaxable Federal property--such
as military installations, Indian Trust and Treaty lands, or national
parks--make it difficult to generate revenue for capital projects, due
to minimal property or assessed property value, limited bonding
capacity, or lack of taxpayers. Federal funding for Impact Aid School
Construction are narrowly targeted and inadequate.
More than $4.2 billion in projects were identified as ``the most
pressing construction need.'' The Impact Aid Construction line item has
hovered under $18 million in annual appropriations over the last
decade, alternating year-to-year between a formula for heavily impacted
districts and an emergency grant program that supports only six-to-
eight grants per cycle.
See NAFIS, ``Foundations for Learning: The Facilities Needs of
Federally Impacted Schools'', August 2017: https://www.nafisdc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/07/2017-school-construction-report.pdf
Reservation Roads
The National Tribal Transportation Facility Inventory consists of
over 161,000 miles of public roads that cross multiple jurisdictions
(tribal, federal, state and local), including: 31,500 of BIA roads;
27,000 miles of tribal roads; and the remaining 101,500 miles of roads
rely on maintenance from federal agencies and state and local
governments.
Unsafe reservation road conditions present an obvious inequity
between Native and non-Native communities and a significant barrier to
economic development and efforts to improve living conditions on
reservations. For example, more than 60 percent of the Reservation
roads system is unimproved earth and gravel, and approximately 24
percent of tribal bridges are classified as deficient or dangerous.
State governments spend $4,000-$5,000 per road mile on state road and
highway maintenance. In contrast, road maintenance spending in Indian
Country is less than $500 per road-mile.
For FY18 the BIA distributed approximately $32.6 million in Tribal
Priority Allocation (TPA) funding for the administration and the
performance of the road maintenance program. The FY15 deferred
maintenance for reservation roads was $289 million. The FY18 deferred
maintenance for BIA roads was estimated at $392 million.
See example FHA-USDOT testimony before SCIA (Oct. 15, 2010):
https://www.indian.senate.gov/sites/default/files/upload/files/
JohnBaxtertestimony.pdf
Indian Housing
Indian Country faces a decades old housing crisis. Over 90,000
American Indian families are homeless or under-housed. More than 30% of
American Indian families live in overcrowded housing--a rate six times
the national average. In 2017, HUD reported that it would take 33,000
new units to alleviate overcrowded housing on Indian lands and an
additional 35,000 to replace existing housing units in grave condition.
To meet the total need of approximately 68,000 housing units (new and
replacement), with the average development cost of a three-bedroom
home, the total cost is in excess of $33 billion.
See HUD, ``Housing Needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives in
Tribal Areas'', Executive Summary at xix, (Jan. 2017): https://
www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/HNAIHousingNeeds.pdf
Tribal Justice Facilities
Violent crime rates in Indian country are more than 2.5 times the
national rate and some reservations face more than 20 times the
national rate of violence. The lack of working public safety and
justice infrastructure handcuffs the under-funded and under-staffed
tribal justice officials (law enforcement, tribal court officials, and
corrections staff), preventing them from doing their job effectively.
In some cases, tribal or BIA jails have not been upgraded since they
were built many decades ago.
With the exception of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act, Congress appropriated approximately $38.2 million for maintenance/
repair and new and replacement construction of tribal justice
facilities from FY09-FY14. As of FY14, the Department of Justice-Bureau
of Justice Assistance ``no longer provides funding for the construction
of new tribal justice facilities. . . .'' DOJ came to this
determination without consulting impacted Indian tribes. At the same
time, the Bureau of Indian Affairs continues to condemn tribal jails,
police and courts facilities that no longer remain safe for occupancy.
See example, DOJ IG, ``Audit of the OJP's Tribal Justice Systems
Infrastructure Program, at 3 and fn8 (Jan. 2017): https://
oig.justice.gov/reports/2017/a1710.pdf
Indian Reservation Drinking Water and Waste Water Systems
The IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program is critical to
preventing disease and providing clean drinking water and waste
disposal systems to Native communities. The Sanitation Deficiency
System reports that the total sanitation facility need in Indian
Country increased from $1.86 billion in 2005 to $3.39 billion in 2015--
an increase of more than 80%.
See FY17 IHS Budget Justification at CJ-170. https://www.ihs.gov/
budgetformulation/includes/themes/responsive2017/documents/
FY2017CongressionalJustification.pdf
Indian Water Settlements--Water Delivery Systems
In addition to safe drinking water, waste water, and irrigation and
dam maintenance, Indian Country lags far behind in the most basic water
infrastructure need of water delivery systems.
Tribes have pursued quantification of their water rights through
decades of litigation and negotiated settlements. The settlements
involve negotiation between tribes, the federal government, states,
water districts, and private water users, among others. Many
stakeholders note that these negotiated agreements are more likely to
allow tribes not only to quantify their water rights on paper but also
to procure access to resources in the form of infrastructure and other
related expenses.
After being negotiated, approval and implementation of Indian water
rights settlements require federal action. As of 2019, 36 Indian water
rights settlements had been federally approved. After being
congressionally authorized, federal projects associated with approved
Indian water rights settlements are implemented by the Bureau of
Reclamation or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (both within the Department
of the Interior), pursuant to congressional directions.
Tribal governments and Indian Country residents are forced to wait
additional decades to implement these long fought settlements. The
delivery of wet water (as opposed to paper water) to tribal governments
that have enacted settlement agreements often requires significant
financial resources and long-term federal funding investments, often in
the form of new projects and infrastructure.
In early 2019, DOI estimated that Reclamation had a backlog of $1.3
billion in ``authorized but unfunded'' Indian water rights settlements.
This is the estimated discretionary funding requirement to complete
authorized settlements, after mandatory funds and other authorized
funding streams are taking into account. Bureau of Reclamation,
``FY2020 President's Budget Stakeholder's Briefing,'' March 19, 2019.
Any federal infrastructure package must include funding to provide
closure to these tribal governments in the form of funding for water
delivery systems to ``make good'' on these dozens of Indian water
rights settlements.
See CRS, Indian Water Rights Settlements @ https://fas.org/sgp/crs/
misc/R44148.pdf
Indian Country's Digital Divide: The Least Connected People in America
As of year-end 2016, 92.3 percent of the overall population had
high-speed broadband access, up from 90 percent in 2015 and 81.2
percent in 2012. However, over 24 million Americans still lack fixed
terrestrial broadband at adequate speeds. The gap ``in rural and Tribal
America remains notable: 30.7 percent of Americans in rural areas and
35.4 percent of Americans in Tribal lands lack access to fixed
terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps broadband, as compared to only 2.1 percent
of Americans in urban areas.''
See FCC Broadband Deployment Report at 22 (Feb. 2, 2018): https://
www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-2018-broadband-deployment-report
See also Politico, ``The Least Connected People in America'' (Feb.
7, 2018): https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/02/07/rural-
indian-reservations-broadband-access-000628
Tax Proposals: Investing in Reservation Infrastructure
Federal infrastructure revitalization proposals must combine
significant direct federal investments in Indian Country infrastructure
with common sense tax reforms to aid infrastructure financing, help
strengthen tribal government-private sector partnerships, and align
federal tax policy with the longstanding policy supporting tribal
government self-determination.
The Tax Code provides a number of tools and incentives for the
construction of state and local government infrastructure and economic
development projects. Too often, these same programs are not available
to Indian tribal governments.
To address this glaring oversight, Congress should amend the Tax
Code to provide tribal governments with direct access to the Low Income
Housing Tax Credit and New Markets Tax Credit programs, ease
regulations to build affordable Native veterans' housing on Indian
lands (See Tribal HUD-VASH program), ensure that Build America Bonds
and similar programs and proposals include direct investments in Indian
Country, and clarify that tribal governments can issue tax-exempt and
private equity / activity bonds for on-reservation projects on par with
state and local governments.
Direct access to these and other federal tax incentive programs
will spur public-private partnerships to help rebuild Indian Country
infrastructure, small business development, and help address
longstanding housing needs on Indian lands.
The LIHTC program is a prime example of a federal-investment
program that is successfully funding the infrastructure needs of state
and local governments, but failing to address the significant unmet
needs on Indian lands.
Congress enacted the LIHTC Program in 1986 to provide the private
market with greater incentives to invest in affordable rental housing.
The LIHTC gives states, U.S. possessions, and several cities the
authority to competitively issue tax credits to developers who
construct, rehabilitate, or acquire rental housing for lower-income
households. State Housing Finance Agencies (HFAs) issue tax credits to
developers based on the HFA's IRS-approved Qualified Allocation Plan
(QAP), which outlines a state's affordable housing priorities and
ranking and selection process for projects.
Originally, each state was granted a tax-credit allocation of $1.25
per capita. The allocation has been adjusted to inflation. The housing
credit ceiling for each state for calendar year 2015 was the greater of
$2.30 multiplied by the state's population or $2,680,000. In 2014, the
annual expense credits for the LIHTC program was $6.7 billion, making
the program one of the largest corporate tax programs administered by
the federal government.
A state's population for any calendar year is determined by
reference to the most recent census estimate (whether final or
provisional) released by the Bureau of the Census before the beginning
of the calendar year for which the housing credit ceiling is set.
The IRS and state HFAs administer the LIHTC. All 50 states, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern
Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have HFAs that receive
LIHTC allocations. Indian tribal governments are the only
constitutionally recognized sovereign to not receive a direct LIHTC
allocation.
Mr. Larsen. And are there any questions for Representative
Haaland?
All right. Thank you very much, Representative.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you.
Mr. Larsen. Next will be Representative Cline, then Welch,
then Jayapal, in that order.
Representative Cline, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. BEN CLINE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today as this committee looks at ways to
repair our Nation's crumbling infrastructure. I represent a
district in the Commonwealth of Virginia that is in dire need
of resources to modernize its aging infrastructure and relieve
the congestion bottlenecks that afflict our highways.
Most notable for the region that I represent is Interstate
81, a road that spans six States with over 300 miles of it in
Virginia, and stretches the entirety of my district, from Front
Royal in the north to Roanoke in the south. It truly is the
economic backbone of the Sixth Congressional District.
Thanks to America's strong economy, a growing number of
people and businesses are utilizing our roadways every day.
This includes not only folks on their way to work, but also
trucks transporting goods through Virginia to the west, north,
and south. This has been especially true since NAFTA was passed
in 1993. As a regular driver on I-81 myself, I share my
constituents' frustrations regarding constant delays and
backups on I-81 that have plagued the region for years.
I-81 is no longer a road that passes through simply scenic
farmland and rural communities at the foot of the Blue Ridge
Mountains. It now stretches along vibrant cities and growing
towns filled with booming agri-business, technology companies,
manufacturers, tourist destinations, and much more. While these
strong local economies are a sign that I-81 is bringing jobs
and prosperity to our region, the aging road has not kept up
with the demands of users since it was first constructed over a
half century ago.
In 2018 Virginia released the I-81 Corridor Improvement
Plan, which revealed what daily users know all too well: I-81
needs to be improved to meet growing demands. It is clear that
the entire Virginia section of I-81 needs to be widened to
three lanes, along with interchange improvements to help with
traffic flows.
Furthermore, while I believe that the States are best
positioned to decide which projects should be allocated limited
resources to repair and restore our roadways, we must ensure
that our Federal interstate highways get the Federal funding
that is necessary to support interstate commerce and economic
growth.
Each year there are nearly 2,000 crashes on I-81, with over
25 percent involving heavy trucks, and over 45 major crashes a
year causing delays greater than 4 hours. Current conditions
are not only a frustration, but a grave public safety concern.
People are dying on this road, and the failure to keep
America's infrastructure up to par is costing lives.
We must act to get America's roads moving again with public
safety at the forefront of our agenda. The I-81 Improvement
Plan also highlighted that in the years to come travel will
continue to increase and road conditions will degrade further.
Moreover, by 2040 it is expected that there will be nearly
20 million truck trips moving three-quarters of 1 trillion
dollars' worth of goods each year along the I-81 corridor
alone. This shows just how vital repairing our roadways is to
the continued economic success of our Nation: if people are
unable to depend on our roadways to get to work and to
transport goods, both our economy and our Nation as a whole
will suffer.
While Virginia has made significant efforts to fund
improvements during this recent General Assembly session,
additional options to direct Federal resources toward I-81
should be on the table. Failure to act is not an option, and I
stand ready to work with my colleagues to advance solutions to
repair and rebuild our infrastructure to ensure America's next
century is its greatest yet.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today, and I look forward to working with this committee as it
moves forward with legislation.
[Mr. Cline's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ben Cline, a Representative in Congress from
the Commonwealth of Virginia
Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today as this committee looks at ways to repair
our nation's crumbling infrastructure. I represent a district in the
Commonwealth of Virginia that is in dire need of resources to modernize
its aging infrastructure and relieve the congestion bottlenecks that
afflict our highways. Most notable for my region is Interstate 81--a
road that spans six states, with over 300 miles of it in Virginia, and
stretches the entirety of my district from Front Royal in the North to
Roanoke in the South.
Thanks to America's strong economy, a growing number of people and
businesses are utilizing our roadways every day. This includes not only
folks on their way to work, but also trucks transporting goods through
Virginia to the west, north, and south. This has been especially true
since NAFTA was passed in 1993. As a regular driver on I-81 myself, I
share my constituents' frustrations regarding constant delays and
backups on I-81 that have plagued the region for years.
I-81 is no longer a road that passes through only scenic farmland
and rural communities at the foot of the Blue Ridge mountains. It now
stretches along vibrant cities and small towns filled with booming
agribusinesses, technology companies, manufacturers, tourist
destinations, and much more. While these strong local economies are a
sign that I-81 is bringing jobs and prosperity to our region, the aging
road has not kept up with the demands of users since it was first
constructed over half a century ago.
In 2018, Virginia released the I-81 Corridor Improvement Plan,
which revealed what daily users know all too well. I-81 needs to be
improved to meet growing demands. It is clear to me that the entire
Virginia section of I-81 needs to be widened to three lanes along with
interchange improvements to help with traffic flows. Furthermore, while
I believe that the states are best positioned to allocate resources for
projects to repair and restore our roadways, we must ensure that they
get the federal funding that is appropriate for these Federal
Interstate highways.
Each year there are nearly 2,000 crashes on I-81, with over 25%
involving heavy trucks, and over 45 major crashes a year causing delays
greater than four hours. Current conditions are not only a frustration,
but a grave public safety concern. People are dying on this road and
the failure to keep America's infrastructure up to par is costing
lives. We must act to get America's roads moving again with public
safety at the forefront of our agenda.
The I-81 improvement plan also highlighted that in the years to
come travel will continue to increase and road conditions will degrade
further. Moreover, by 2040 it is expected that there will be nearly 20
million truck trips moving three quarters of a trillion dollars' worth
of goods each year along the I-81 corridor alone. This shows just how
vital repairing our roadways is to the continued economic success of
our nation. If people are unable to depend on our roadways to get to
work and to transport goods, both our economy and our Nation as a whole
will suffer.
While Virginia has made significant efforts to fund improvements,
additional options to direct federal resources toward I-81 should be on
the table. Failure to act is not an option, and I stand ready to work
with my colleagues to advance solutions to repair and rebuild our
infrastructure to ensure America's next century is its greatest yet.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today, and I look
forward to working with this committee as it moves forward with
legislation.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Representative Cline.
Any questions from the committee?
None? Well, thank you very much. Next the Chair will
recognize Representative Welch from Vermont.
TESTIMONY OF HON. PETER WELCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT
Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you very much
for this. It is a disgrace, what has happened to our
infrastructure in this country. And it is going to be up to
this Congress to finally address it. It is a mess, you know.
Our roads and bridges are crumbling. Public transit rail
programs remain underfunded, our water infrastructure is
antiquated, and potholes don't fix themselves. We are going to
have to have a sustainable funding source, and I will support
that.
You know, we have got the American Society of Civil
Engineers giving Vermont a C in infrastructure, and that makes
us better than the grade it gives to our whole country, which
is D+. There is no excuse for that: 299 bridges in Vermont are
structurally deficient; 29 percent of our roads are in poor or
very poor condition.
And Vermont, like other small and rural States, relies
heavily on Federal transportation funding. It is about 50
percent of our budget. We have made progress, as many States
have, by investing, going to their taxpayers, but we can't do
it without a Federal transportation and infrastructure policy.
I had a chance to meet with our local officials, mayors in
the largest cities in Vermont, with the Vermont Legislature,
and the transportation committees, and with local officials,
and I want to outline what it is they conveyed to me were their
priorities.
Number one, identify a stable and reliable funding source
and maintain current funding ratios among the States. Otherwise
it is going to be a Band-Aid solution. Recently we were passing
transportation bills on a 3-month basis. You can't plan a
bridge, let alone build a bridge, in 3 months. And we have got
to bite the bullet on funding. I will be supportive of any
practical approach that raises the revenue so that we can meet
our obligations to our States and our communities.
Number two, fund discretionary grant programs. There is an
enormous amount of leadership in local communities, where there
is a huge investment in trying to get it right so they can
build a transportation system and an infrastructure system that
helps their local communities. That drives down decisionmaking
to the local level. Let's continue that.
Next, let's invest in water infrastructure. We have water
systems that go back to the Civil War in Rutland, Vermont, and
this is a situation that exists throughout our communities in
Vermont and around the country. And local property taxpayers
aren't going to be able to do that on their own.
We need airport improvement. Vermont has 10 State-owned
airports and they provide a vital connector to rural
communities. We want full funding of the Airport Improvement
Program. That will help get us the money that we need for major
repairs and improvements.
We want to increase rail funding for bridge and track
rehabilitation. You know, we have legacy rail lines and the
tracks just are there, but they are not in good enough shape to
take enormous advantage of that infrastructure that we once
were very proud of and now is withering. So we want funding for
programs like the consolidated rail infrastructure and safety
improvement bill that provides flexible funding necessary for
us in Vermont to meet our needs.
Next, invest in alternative sources of transportation.
Public transit and other alternative forms of transportation
are very important in places like Vermont. We would benefit
significantly from an increase in the rural formula operating
funds. We have received $4 million annually from the program,
which is three times less than what we need to fully fund our
obligations.
And finally, let's prioritize climate change resiliency. We
don't have to argue about climate change. We all see what has
happened in our own communities. And we all know, when we talk
to local officials, we have to have more resilient systems, and
that has to be organically ingrained in the legislation that
will come out of this committee.
I want to thank my colleagues. You are the tip of the spear
for us in Congress. But you have support from Republicans and
Democrats to do something bold and big, and we know our Nation
needs it.
[Mr. Welch's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter Welch, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Vermont
Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves,
America's roads and bridges are crumbling, public transit and rail
programs remain underfunded, and our water infrastructure is
antiquated. It is vital that Congress enact a robust and fully funded
infrastructure investment package. As your Committee begins the
difficult task of writing this bill, I seek your support for inclusion
of the following Vermont priorities.
Identify a Stable and Reliable Funding Source; Maintain Current State
Funding Ratio
Like all rural states, Vermont relies heavily on federal
transportation funding which makes up half of our transportation
budget. Safe infrastructure requires a stable and reliable funding
source. While Vermont has made progress investing in our
infrastructure, that progress is at risk due to a shortfall in federal
funding that has placed a heavy burden on state and local taxpayers to
fund essential infrastructure improvements. Municipal governments are
under significant financial pressure to maintain their highways and
bridges. State funding for Vermont highway aid programs is
insufficient. I pledge to work with you to identify and pass a
sustainable federal revenue source that will ensure essential Vermont
infrastructure projects are completed. I also urge you to maintain the
existing apportionment formulae for states that recognizes the unique
challenges in rural communities, like Vermont.
Fund Discretionary Grant Programs
Federal discretionary grant programs fund critical local, regional,
and national infrastructure projects. These programs directly address
critical transportation needs and encourage states to compete to
develop improved transportation systems. The Surface Transportation
Block Grant Program is the most flexible of all the federal highway
funding programs and allows Vermont to undertake any project necessary
on the federal aid highway system. Increasing funding to this and other
discretionary programs will allow Vermont to take on more highway,
bridge, bike and pedestrian projects, as well as replace more transit
buses.
Invest in Water Infrastructure
Aging water infrastructure systems and related repairs have placed
a heavy financial burden on towns and cities across Vermont. Local
governments are ill-equipped to take on stormwater, wastewater, and
drinking water upgrades necessary to ensure our water is safe to drink,
the environment is protected, and communities are safeguarded from
catastrophic flooding. In recent years, our cities and towns have been
overwhelmed with water main breaks and sewage overflows into rivers and
lakes. The cost to maintain, replace, and upgrade this infrastructure
has fallen to water users who have experienced a sharp rise in
unaffordable rates. Flexible and sufficient federal funding for water
infrastructure is essential.
Invest in Airports
Vermont must invest in infrastructure at our ten state-owned
airports that serve as a vital connector in our rural communities.
Nearly $50 million is needed to reconstruct and extend runways, repair
taxiways, lights and beacons, obstructions, terminal buildings, and
improve firefighting equipment. Increased funding for the Airport
Improvement Program, would assist rural states like Vermont in
maintaining our vital small airports.
Invest in Railroad Bridge and Track Rehabilitation
Vermont has nearly 305 miles of state-owned rail that is plagued
with poor track conditions and bridges, causing significant delays that
hamper freight operations. Rail is the only transportation mode that
does not have dedicated federal funding. As a result, states rely
almost exclusively on competitive grants that too often disadvantage
rural states. The Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety
Improvements (CRISI) program is the most flexible program, allowing
funds to be used for both freight improvements and intercity passenger
rail. Increased funding for CRISI would help Vermont to rehabilitate
our railroad tracks and bridges.
Invest in Alternative Sources of Transportation
Alternative sources of transportation are important in rural states
like Vermont. Our public transit providers deliver approximately 5
million trips annually, most in rural areas. While use of Vermont's
transit systems has increased significantly in recent years, operating
funds have not. Vermont receives approximately $4 million annually in
Rural Formula Operating funds, three times less than what is needed to
fully-fund the transit program. Increased funding to the Section 5311
Transit Program would allow Vermont to replace more buses and provide
operating funds for more bus routes. Vermont has also prioritized
funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects to ensure safe and
convenient transportation alternatives, including bike paths, bike
lanes, and sidewalks. Last year, we benefited from $300,000 in federal
funding for these projects through the Transportation Alternatives
Program which must be fully funded and administered consistent with its
intended purpose.
Prioritize Climate Change Resiliency
An increase in harsh winters and severe storms is a major challenge
for Vermont's cities and towns. Our state is still recovering from
Tropical Storm Irene which devastated our transportation infrastructure
in 2011. It is essential that your bill contemplate the impact of an
increase in natural disasters attributable to climate change. Vermont's
state highway system needs additional funding for repairs due to
increasingly harsh winter conditions as well as for the deterioration
of aging bridges which has accelerated due to more severe winters.
Federal funding must be provided to help ensure that our infrastructure
is resilient to withstand increasingly powerful weather events.
I look forward to working with you to include Vermont's priorities
in your bill and to assist you in any way I can to ensure its
expeditious enactment.
Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like
to introduce into the record a letter that I wrote to your
committee, and make it part of the record.
Thank you very much for all that you have done to help us.
Mr. Allred [presiding]. Without objection, and thank you.
[The information follows:]
Letter of May 1, 2019, from Hon. Peter Welch, Submitted for the Record
by Hon. Peter Welch, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Vermont
May 1, 2019.
The Honorable Peter DeFazio,
Chairman,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2165 Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
The Honorable Sam Graves,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2164 Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Sam Graves,
America's roads and bridges are crumbling, public transit and rail
programs remain underfunded, and our water infrastructure is
antiquated. It is vital that Congress enact a robust and fully funded
infrastructure investment package. As your Committee begins the
difficult task of writing this bill, I seek your support for inclusion
of the following Vermont priorities.
Identify a Stable and Reliable Funding Source; Maintain Current State
Funding Ratio
State funding for Vermont transportation programs is insufficient.
Vermont relies heavily on federal transportation funding which makes up
half of our transportation budget. While Vermont has made progress
investing in our infrastructure, those gains are at risk due to a
shortfall in federal funding that has placed a heavy burden on state
and local taxpayers to fund essential infrastructure improvements. Long
overdue investments in infrastructure require a stable and reliable
federal funding source.
Rural municipal governments are under significant financial
pressure to maintain their highways and bridges. It is essential that
funding be included in the bill for rural municipal transportation
networks. To the maximum extent possible, bureaucratic requirements
that too often prevent cities and towns from taking advantage of
federal transportation funds should be minimized.
Finally, it is essential that existing apportionment formulae that
recognize the unique challenges in rural states be maintained.
Fund Discretionary Grant Programs
Federal discretionary grant programs fund critical local, regional,
and national infrastructure projects. These programs directly address
critical transportation needs and encourage states to compete to
develop improved transportation systems. The Surface Transportation
Block Grant Program is the most flexible of all the federal highway
funding programs and allows Vermont to undertake any project necessary
on the federal aid highway system. Increasing funding to this and other
discretionary programs will allow Vermont to take on more highway,
bridge, bike and pedestrian projects, as well as replace more transit
buses.
Invest in Water Infrastructure
Aging water infrastructure systems and related repairs have placed
a heavy financial burden on towns and cities across Vermont. Local
governments are ill-equipped to take on stormwater, wastewater, and
drinking water upgrades necessary to ensure our water is safe to drink,
the environment is protected, and communities are safeguarded from
catastrophic flooding. In recent years, our cities and towns have been
overwhelmed with water main breaks and sewage overflows into rivers and
lakes. The cost to maintain, replace, and upgrade this infrastructure
has fallen to water users who have experienced a sharp rise in
unaffordable rates. Flexible and sufficient federal funding for water
infrastructure is essential.
Invest in Airports
Vermont must invest in infrastructure at our ten state-owned
airports that serve as a vital connector in our rural communities.
Nearly $50 million is needed to reconstruct and extend runways, repair
taxiways, lights and beacons, obstructions, terminal buildings, and
improve firefighting equipment. Increased funding for the Airport
Improvement Program would assist rural states like Vermont in
maintaining our vital small airports.
Invest in Railroad Bridge and Track Rehabilitation
Vermont has nearly 305 miles of state-owned rail that is plagued
with poor track conditions and bridges, causing significant delays that
hamper freight operations. Rail is the only transportation mode that
does not have dedicated federal funding. As a result, states rely
almost exclusively on competitive grants that too often disadvantage
rural states. The Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety
Improvements (CRISI) program is the most flexible program, allowing
funds to be used for both freight improvements and intercity passenger
rail. Increased funding for CRISI would help Vermont to rehabilitate
our railroad tracks and bridges.
Invest in Alternative Sources of Transportation
Alternative sources of transportation are important in rural states
like Vermont. Our public transit providers deliver approximately 5
million trips annually, mostly in rural areas. While use of Vermont's
transit systems has increased significantly in recent years, operating
funds have not. Vermont receives approximately $4 million annually in
Rural Formula Operating funds, three times less than what is needed to
fully-fund the transit program. Increased funding to the Section 5311
Transit Program would allow Vermont to replace more buses and provide
operating funds for more bus routes. Vermont has also prioritized
funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects to ensure safe and
convenient transportation alternatives, including bike paths, bike
lanes, and sidewalks. Last year, we benefited from $300,000 in federal
funding for these projects through the Transportation Alternatives
Program which must be fully funded and administered consistent with its
intended purpose.
Prioritize Climate Change Resiliency
An increase in harsh winters and severe storms is a major challenge
for Vermont's cities and towns. Our state is still recovering from
Tropical Storm Irene which devastated our transportation infrastructure
in 2011. It is essential that your bill contemplate the impact of an
increase in natural disasters attributable to climate change. Vermont's
state highway system needs additional funding for repairs due to
increasingly harsh winter conditions as well as for the deterioration
of aging bridges which has accelerated due to more severe winters.
Federal funding must be provided to help ensure that our infrastructure
is resilient to withstand increasingly powerful weather events.
I look forward to working with you to include Vermont's priorities
in your bill and stand ready to assist you in any way I can to ensure
its expeditious enactment. I pledge to work with you to identify and
pass a sustainable federal revenue source that will ensure essential
infrastructure projects in Vermont and across the country are
completed.
Sincerely,
Peter Welch,
Member of Congress.
Mr. Allred. Do any members of the committee wish to ask any
questions?
Thank you, sir.
I would now like to recognize our next witness, the
gentlewoman from the great State of Washington, Representative
Jayapal, for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. PRAMILA JAYAPAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member. I appreciate the opportunity to be before you and share
how an investment in infrastructure will benefit the people and
economy of our country in the context of my district.
Washington's Seventh Congressional District is growing very
rapidly. We are booming with innovation, people, and industry,
which is wonderful. But the downside of that success is that
our region must address increasing traffic, the decreasing
affordability of housing, and the growing effects of climate
change. In my district residents have several times voted to
tax themselves to create a regional mass transit system that is
helping to ameliorate traffic, and allowing working people to
live farther afield where housing is more affordable.
This is my hope for the committee, that the Federal
Government match that commitment to mass rapid transit systems
for our rapidly growing urban cities. I strongly believe that
this is an important piece of what our transportation
infrastructure package should include.
I also come to you with three specific additional elements
that I hope will be included in the infrastructure bill.
First, it is time to reform the Harbor Maintenance Tax, or
the HMT. The HMT is the single largest source of Federal
funding for coastal ports and waterways. But, unfortunately, it
is just not working as it should. By fixing the HMT we can
drive additional investment to our coastal ports without any
new taxes. I applaud the committee's focus on making sure that
annual HMT revenues are fully spent, putting the trust back
into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Shippers pay the HMT
when they use the ports, and the tax is intended to support
infrastructure at ports, and this investment is critically
needed. Fully using the tax is a no-brainer.
However, if we only address full use without solving other
ports' concerns, we would be leaving some behind. There is
broad agreement among policymakers and the ports that they
represent that a change in the distribution of the HMT funds
will drive additional investment to our coastal ports without
any additional new taxes.
As an example of the current inequity, the six donor ports
that are identified in the 2014 WRRDA bill generated 53 percent
of HMT collections in 2017, but received only 3 percent in
return. That means that the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma receive
only pennies for every HMT dollar generated--some years even
less than a penny. Not only is that distribution unfair, but
the added cost of the HMT also contributes to the loss of cargo
from the Puget Sound ports to nearby ports in Canada, a
phenomenon that the Federal Maritime Commission has validated.
Congress should pass comprehensive HMT reform legislation that
resolves the wide range of concerns that the Nation's ports
have about the Harbor Maintenance Tax.
Second, we must direct more Federal funding to the needs of
our smaller communities. In my district Seattle is booming, but
so are the cities that surround Seattle. While the USDOT is now
setting aside 50 percent of BUILD grants for rural areas, this
leaves small cities like Burien, Normandy Park, and Edmonds
behind.
For instance, the cities of Shoreline and Lake Forest Park
are currently working on the redevelopment of 145th Street, a
thoroughfare that will be a major conveyor of bus, bike, and
pedestrian traffic to and from Interstate 5 and Sound Transit's
light rail system. But making this road accessible to heavier
and multimodal traffic requires investment. And the tax bases
in these communities--communities, by the way, that have
already voted to tax themselves to support regional light
rail--is simply not large enough for investments of this size.
The Federal Government's dollars would be well repaid, as these
thriving communities contribute to our economy.
Third, it is time for the Federal Government to invest in
green infrastructure. Green infrastructure not only addresses
the impacts of climate change, but works with nature and
reduces the use of fuels and resources that contribute to
climate change. Research suggests that the Washington Seventh
Congressional District--and indeed, the entire Pacific
Northwest--will see more intense rain events in the coming
years.
At the same time, we are rife in our State with outdated
culverts that neither adequately move stormwater nor allow the
passage of fish. A successful infrastructure bill will make
much-needed improvements to those roads, bridges, energy grid,
and water systems, and take into account what we know about
climate and nature.
In closing, I commend the chairman and this committee for
taking up the cause of infrastructure, and I offer parting
thoughts in the context of the FAST Act.
Our highway system alone has suffered greatly since we
stopped raising the gas tax--extremely efficient and cost
effective to collect. So to that end of an alternative, the
Washington State Transportation Commission has been researching
and assessing a road usage charge, or RUC system, since 2011.
It creates equity, as it is assessed on miles driven,
regardless of fuel source or efficiency. I hope that we can
consider the RUC in this committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify.
[Ms. Jayapal's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Pramila Jayapal, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Washington
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to share how an
investment in infrastructure will benefit the people and economy of the
country in the context of my district.
Washington's 7th district is growing rapidly, booming with
innovation, people and industry. The downside of this success is that
our region must address increasing traffic, the decreasing
affordability of housing, and the growing effects of climate change.
In my district, residents have several times voted to tax
themselves to create a regional transit system that is helping to
ameliorate traffic and allowing working people to live farther afield
where housing is more affordable. The federal government should match
that commitment. For that reason, I come to you with three elements
that I strongly urge the committee to include in its infrastructure
bill.
First, it is time to reform the Harbor Maintenance Tax, or HMT. The
HMT is the single largest source of federal funding for coastal ports
and waterways. Unfortunately, it is not working as it should. By fixing
the HMT we can drive additional investment to our coastal ports without
any new taxes. I applaud the Committee's focus on making sure annual
HMT revenues are fully spent, putting the trust back in the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund.
Shippers pay the Harbor Maintenance Tax when they use ports; the
tax is intended to support infrastructure at ports, and this investment
is critically needed. Fully using the tax is a no brainer. However, if
we only address full use without solving other ports' concerns, we
would be leaving some behind.
There is broad agreement among policymakers and the ports they
represent that a change in the distribution of HMT funds will drive
additional investment to our coastal ports without any new taxes. As an
example of the current inequity, the six donor ports identified in the
2014 WRRDA bill generated 53% of HMT collections in 2017 but received
only 3% in return. That means that the ports of Seattle and Tacoma
receive only pennies for every HMT dollar generated; some years even
less than a penny. Not only is this distribution unfair, but the added
cost of the HMT also contributes to the loss of cargo from Puget Sound
ports to nearby ports in Canada, a phenomenon that the Federal Maritime
Commission has validated.
Congress should pass comprehensive HMT reform legislation that
resolves the wide range of concerns the nation's ports have about the
HMT.
Second, we must direct more federal funding to the needs of our
smaller communities. In my district, Seattle is booming, but so are the
cities that surround Seattle. While the USDOT is now setting aside 50
percent of BUILD grants for rural areas, this leaves small cities like
Burien, Normandy Park, and Edmonds, Washington behind.
For instance, the cities of Shoreline and Lake Forest Park are
currently working on the redevelopment of 145th Street, a thoroughfare
that will be a major conveyor of bus, bike and pedestrian traffic to
and from Interstate-5 and Sound Transit's Light Rail system. But making
this road accessible to heavier and multi-modal traffic requires
investment. The tax base in these communities--communities that have
already voted to tax themselves to support regional light rail--is not
large enough for investments of this size. The federal government's
dollars would be well repaid as these thriving communities contribute
to the economy.
Third, it is time for the federal government to invest in green
infrastructure. Green infrastructure not only addresses the impacts of
climate change, but it works with nature and reduces the use of fuels
and resources that contribute to climate change. Research suggests that
Washington's 7th District, and indeed, the entire Pacific Northwest
will see more intense rain events in the coming years. At the same
time, Washington state is rife with outdated culverts that neither
adequately move stormwater nor allow the passage of fish.
A successful infrastructure bill will make needed improvements to
roads, bridges, our energy grid, and water systems, and will take into
account what we know about climate and nature. This means that we use
estuaries and wetlands to filter pollutants, clean water and provide
habitat for salmon and forage fish. It means that we increase permeable
surfaces, replace lead pipes, use wind and solar power, and expand bus
and rail systems to get people out of their cars. And if we make these
investments at the right levels, we will also create jobs.
In closing, I commend the chairman and this committee for taking up
the cause of infrastructure, something that has been chronically and
tragically underfunded, and I offer these parting thoughts especially
in the context of the upcoming reauthorization of the Fixing America's
Surface Transportation, or FAST Act.
Our highway system alone has suffered greatly since we stopped
raising the gas tax, which is extremely efficient and cost-effective to
collect. While, thankfully for our environment, the energy efficiency
of vehicles is improving and more people are turning to vehicles fueled
by alternative sources, this means that the gas tax will decline in
value over time. We need an alternative.
To that end, the Washington State Transportation Commission has
been researching and assessing a Road Usage Charge, or RUC system since
2011. The RUC creates equity as it is assessed on miles driven
regardless of fuel source or efficiency. So, like my other
recommendations, the RUC is an idea that better fits the realities of
the world we live in and the needs of our people. Thank you.
Mr. Allred. Thank you for your testimony.
Does any member of the committee wish to question Ms.
Jayapal?
Mr. Larsen?
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Jayapal,
and thanks for your service to the Seventh Congressional
District that borders the great Second Congressional District
of Washington State, as well.
To your point about the smaller communities and the bill
grants, in the last several Congresses we had the TIGER grants,
and I had a bill called the TIGER CUBS Grant----
Ms. Jayapal. TIGER CUBS, yes.
Mr. Larsen [continuing]. To help small and medium-sized
cities with TIGER. So we are going to take that same approach
now with the bill, we are just trying to find the right acronym
for it.
Ms. Jayapal. I was going to mention that when you were
sitting in the chair's seat. So thank you for that.
Mr. Larsen. Sure, that is fine. Can you let me know--so on
the 145th, are the communities there in Normandy and Shoreline,
Lake Forest, are they getting good response out of Sound
Transit? And are they getting good response out of the city of
Seattle, as well?
Ms. Jayapal. Yes.
Mr. Larsen. They border the city there at 145th.
Ms. Jayapal. They are, but I think it is the overall issue
of where does this investment come from.
So they are--you know, we have finally worked to bring all
of the partners to the table, which, as you know, was not an
easy process. That is now happening. I think they are quite
united on the needs of what has to happen there, but they
really do need some additional funds.
And you know the threshold of where we draw the line for
small cities, even in TIGER CUBS, is an issue.
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Ms. Jayapal. And so we need to find a way to funnel
investments to some of these smaller cities that simply don't
have the ability. But our big connectors--you know our region
very well--those cities are getting more and more pressure as
Seattle expands. There is not enough housing there. People are
being pushed out.
So I think there is--they are working well with Sound
Transit, but we need to help them.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Allred. Thank you, Ms. Jayapal.
I would now like to recognize our next witness, the
gentlewoman from Virginia, Mrs. Luria, for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ELAINE G. LURIA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Mrs. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to my
colleagues for the opportunity to address your committee today.
I would like to bring a few issues to the committee's attention
that are critical, not only for coastal Virginia, but for all
of America.
One key thing is the Chesapeake Bay. It is one of our
Nation's greatest natural resources. It generates $33 billion
in economic value annually, and hosts one of the most important
sites for ecological diversity in North America. Thanks to
innovative partnerships across the State and at the Federal
level, great progress has been made in preserving, protecting,
and restoring this critical ecosystem.
The Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization Act, H.R. 1620,
will fully fund the Chesapeake Bay program for the next 5
years, ensuring that States get the resources they need to
comply with their obligations to protect the Chesapeake Bay.
The vast majority of funding for this program will go directly
towards States within the Chesapeake Bay watershed to help them
control pollution and manage runoff in the tributaries that
feed into the Chesapeake Bay.
This bipartisan bill that I introduced with my colleague
Congressman Rob Wittman from Virginia's First Congressional
District will help ensure the bay remains a vibrant and
beautiful destination for the next generation. I urge the
committee to take up consideration for the Chesapeake Bay
Program Reauthorization Act this month.
I also encourage the committee to act on climate
resiliency. For coastal Virginians and residents of all coastal
communities throughout the U.S., sea level rise and recurrent
flooding aren't the basis of political talking points or
challenges for the future, they are problems we face today.
For example, a heavy rain and a high tide prevents tens of
thousands of sailors from accessing Naval Station Norfolk. On a
similar day I am unable to drive into the parking lot on
occasion to pick my daughter up from school. So these are
challenges that we face on a daily basis, based on rising sea
levels. As the committee develops an infrastructure package,
please ensure we are providing communities the resources they
need to adapt to rising sea levels.
Another issue the committee must prioritize in
infrastructure bills is expanding rural broadband. Access to
high-speed internet is essential to participating in the modern
economy. Reliable, fast internet access can connect people to
other communities, health providers, jobs, and even allow them
to start their own businesses. Although we have made progress
in connecting rural areas to broadband, more work needs to be
done.
On Virginia's Eastern Shore in my district, that estimated
cost is approximately $30 million to adequately expand
broadband access to all areas, and I know that this is a
similar investment necessary in many parts of the rural areas
of this country. The committee must act to ensure we make the
necessary investments in critical infrastructure so that no
Americans, especially in rural areas, are left behind.
Other essential investments in infrastructure cannot be
forgotten for rural America. This includes projects such as
expanding and modernizing our sewer systems, specifically on
Virginia's Eastern Shore, which will provide a much-needed
backbone for economic development. Directing Federal money to
prioritize basic infrastructure needs like this would help
economic growth, improve the health of our community, and raise
the quality of life across America.
Finally, I encourage the committee to fund investments in
America's waterways, and specifically the Port of Virginia.
Nearly 10 percent of Virginia's working residents work in port-
related jobs, and our port enjoys unique advantages with its
deep water, central location, and access to rail. The
administration's budget did not include funding for important
dredging projects, so Congress must come to the rescue, as even
larger ships are carrying record amounts of goods that benefit
both Virginia and America as a whole. It makes sense to make
room in the Federal budget for these investments in our ports
which will further promote nationwide economic growth.
In addition to the importance of large dredging projects
such as the Port of Virginia, it is also equally pivotal for
secondary channels to be dredged. For example, the Little
Machipongo River is a primary aquaculture hub on Virginia's
Eastern Shore, producing some of the largest number of
shellfish and clams in the country. The navigability of this
small waterway is vital to the region's aquaculture industry,
which helps employ hundreds of Virginians.
Thank you again for this opportunity to highlight the
importance of investing in infrastructure in our districts. I
ask members of this committee on both sides of the aisle to
come together and address critical infrastructure needs of
coastal communities like mine. The American people are counting
on us, and future generations are depending on the investments
that we make in this Congress. Thank you again for the
opportunity to testify today.
[Mrs. Luria's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Elaine G. Luria, a Representative in
Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia
Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and to my
colleagues on the Committee for giving me this opportunity. I would
like to bring a few issues to the Committee's attention that are
critical not only for Coastal Virginia, but for America.
The Chesapeake Bay is one of our nation's greatest natural
resources. It generates $33 billion in economic value annually and
hosts one of the most important sites for ecological diversity in North
America. Thanks to innovative partnerships across the state and federal
level, great progress has been made in preserving, protecting, and
restoring this crucial ecosystem.
The Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization Act (H.R. 1620) will
fully fund the Chesapeake Bay Program for the next five years, ensuring
that states get the resources they need to comply with their
obligations to protect the Bay. The vast majority of funding for this
Program will go directly toward states within the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed to help them control pollution and manage runoff into the
tributaries that feed into the Bay. This bipartisan bill will help
ensure that the Bay remains a vibrant and beautiful destination for the
next generation. I urge the committee to take up the consideration of
the Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization Act this month.
I also encourage the Committee to act on climate resiliency. For
Coastal Virginians and residents of coastal communities throughout the
U.S., sea level rise and recurrent flooding aren't the basis of
political talking points or challenges for the future. They are
problems we are dealing with right now, today, this very moment. As the
Committee develops an infrastructure package, please ensure we are
providing communities the resources they need to adapt to rising sea
levels.
Another issue the Committee must prioritize in any infrastructure
bill is expanding rural broadband. Access to high-speed internet is
essential to participate in the modern economy. Reliable, fast internet
access can connect people to other communities, health providers, jobs,
and even allow them to start their own businesses. Although we have
made progress in connecting rural areas to broadband, more work needs
to be done. On Virginia's Eastern Shore in my district, it will cost an
estimated $30 million to adequately expand broadband access. The
Committee must act to ensure we make the necessary investments in this
critical infrastructure so rural Americans are not left behind.
Other, essential investments in infrastructure cannot be forgotten
for rural America. This includes projects such as expanding and
modernizing our sewer systems on Virginia's Eastern Shore, which will
provide a much-needed backbone for economic development. Directing
federal money to prioritize basic infrastructure needs like this would
help economic growth, improve the health of our community, and raise
quality of life across America.
Finally, I encourage the Committee to fund investments in America's
waterways, and specifically the Port of Virginia. Nearly 10 percent of
Virginia's working residents work port-related jobs, and our port
enjoys unique advantages with its deep waters, central location, and
access to rail. The administration's budget did not include funding for
important dredging projects, so Congress must come to the rescue. Ever-
larger ships are carrying record amounts of goods that benefit both
Virginia and America as a whole. It makes sense to make room in the
federal budget for these investments which will further promote
nationwide economic growth.
In addition to the importance of dredging for the Port of Virginia,
it is as equally pivotal for secondary channels. For example, the
Little Machipongo River is a primary aquaculture hub on Virginia's
Eastern Shore, producing some of the largest numbers in shellfish in
the county. The navigability of this waterway is vital to the region's
aquaculture industry, which helps employ hundreds of Virginians.
Thank you again for this opportunity to highlight the importance of
investing in infrastructure to our districts, our constituents, and our
nation. I ask members of this committee on both sides of the aisle to
come together to address the critical infrastructure needs of coastal
communities like mine. The American people are counting on us and
future generations are depending on the investments we make in this
Congress. I have faith that my colleagues will put partisanship aside
and I stand ready to assist with finding common ground to address this
imperative challenge.
Mr. Allred. Thank you for your testimony.
Does any member of the committee wish to question Mrs.
Luria?
Thank you, Mrs. Luria.
I would like to recognize our next witness, the gentleman
from Massachusetts, Mr. Keating, for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. WILLIAM R. KEATING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Keating. Now I know why you weren't in the Foreign
Affairs Committee hearing earlier. Thank you for taking time to
listen to a few comments I have to say. And also, I urge you to
touch base with the chair of the committee, Mr. DeFazio, who is
originally from Massachusetts, and will know specifically what
I am talking about.
In southeastern Massachusetts, the Bourne and Sagamore
Bridges support the only two roads for crossing the Cape Cod
Canal by car. As with so many bridges around the country, these
critical pieces of infrastructure have long reached the end of
their working lives.
In fact, the Army Corps of Engineers has spent millions of
dollars to keep these bridges at a minimal level of operation
and keep regular flow of traffic moving.
And, of course, the traffic is an issue with all our
communities, but it also becomes a matter of heightened concern
during large-scale emergencies. In fact, it is down to one lane
right now, and hopefully we will get this done by Memorial Day.
But it is a constant area--when these two bridges were built in
the early 1930s.
Thankfully, the residents of Cape Cod have not faced a
catastrophic event in recent years, but we have had several
near misses. For example, Hurricane Sandy, which devastated New
York and New Jersey in 2012, and Hurricane Jose, which brought
tropical storm conditions to Martha's Vineyard in Nantucket in
2017. We have also been hit by several Nor'easters over the
last few years, storms that have caused widespread wind and ice
damage, and even death.
Increasingly, it appears my area is due for a major direct
hit. It is also in the regional vicinity, as well, of a nuclear
powerplant, one that is soon going to be facing
decommissioning, but will still be a site of storage.
For these reasons it is important that we recognize the
canal bridges and other critical evacuation infrastructure
across the Nation play fundamental roles in providing for the
safety of countless Americans.
In Massachusetts, I am relieved to report that much of the
State and local work required to shore up the long-term safety
of the canal bridges is already underway. I have also been
working closely with the Army Corps leadership, both in New
England and in Washington, to ensure the safest and most
resilient evacuation routes remain a priority.
We know we are capable of success in this effort, and I
appear before the committee to encourage similar effects and
efforts to be secured for evacuation routes around the country.
Last year I partnered with our two State senators from my
home State, as well as Mr. Garamendi from California, who sits
in the committee, to introduce the Enhancing the Strength and
Capacity of America's Primary Evacuation Routes Act--don't you
love these acts, the titles--or the ESCAPE Act, which would
authorize dedicated public infrastructure funding to construct,
maintain, and protect designated emergency evacuation routes.
Passage of the ESCAPE Act would be an important step in
securing the safety of all communities in times of natural
disaster.
I look forward to partnering with Mr. Garamendi to
reintroduce this legislation again soon. As I know the members
of this committee, I am sure, agree, we cannot risk the public
safety by neglecting our vital roadways. We have got to provide
necessary Federal resources to support safe passage in times of
emergency, and we must eliminate any doubt that the
infrastructure might not meet the challenge.
I thank you for having this opportunity to emphasize the
necessity of safe evacuation routes, and increased Federal
funding in this respect.
I am confident the committee is well equipped to meet our
Nation's infrastructure needs, both in my district and across
our entire country, and I hope to continue this dialogue with
any questions you might have or any further information I can
supply.
[Mr. Keating's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. William R. Keating, a Representative in
Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and the distinguished
Members of this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
about infrastructure issues of the utmost importance to my district.
In Southeastern Massachusetts, the Bourne and Sagamore bridges
support the only two roads for crossing the Cape Cod Canal by car. As
with so many bridges around the country, these critical pieces of
infrastructure have long reached the end of their working lives. In
fact, the Army Corps of Engineers has spent millions of dollars to keep
the bridges at their minimum level of operation and keep the regular
flow of traffic moving. Of course, traffic is an issue in all our
communities, but it becomes a matter of heightened concern during
large-scale emergencies.
Thankfully, the residents of Cape Cod have not faced a catastrophic
event in recent years, but we have had several near-misses--for
example, Hurricane Sandy, which devastated New York in 2012, and
Hurricane Jose, which brought Tropical Storm conditions to Martha's
Vineyard and Nantucket in 2017. We have also been hit by several
Nor'easters the last few winters, storms that have caused widespread
wind and ice damage--and even death. Increasingly, it appears my region
is due for a major direct hit.
For these reasons, it is important that we recognize that the Canal
Bridges, and other critical evacuation infrastructure across the
nation, play fundamental roles in providing for the safety of countless
Americans. In Massachusetts, I am relieved to report that much of the
state and local work required to shore up the long-term safety of the
Canal Bridges is already underway. I have also been working closely
with Army Corps leadership, both in New England and in Washington, to
ensure the safest, most resilient evacuation routes remain a priority.
We know we are capable of success in this effort, and I appear before
this Committee to encourage similar efforts to secure evacuation routes
around the country.
Last year, I partnered with Senators Markey and Warren from my home
state, as well as Mr. Garamendi from California, who sits on this
Committee, to introduce the Enhancing the Strength and Capacity of
America's Primary Evacuation Routes Act, or the ESCAPE Act, which would
authorize dedicated public infrastructure funding to construct,
maintain, and protect designated emergency evacuation routes. Passage
of the ESCAPE act would be an important step in securing the safety of
all communities in times of natural disaster. I look forward to
partnering with Mr. Garamendi to reintroduce this legislation again
soon.
As I know the Members of this Committee agree, we cannot risk the
public safety by neglecting our vital roadways. We must provide the
necessary federal resources to support safe passage in times of
emergency, and we must eliminate any doubt that our infrastructure
might not meet the challenge.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to emphasize the importance of
safe evacuation routes and the need for increased federal support. I am
confident this Committee is well equipped to meet our nation's
infrastructure needs, both in my district and across the United States.
I hope to continue this dialogue as Congress considers upcoming
infrastructure legislation, and I yield back.
Mr. Allred. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Keating.
Does any member of the committee wish to question Mr.
Keating?
Thank you sir.
Mr. Keating. Thank you.
Mr. Allred. Now I would like to recognize our next witness,
the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Meng, for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. GRACE MENG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman DeFazio,
Ranking Member, and distinguished members of this committee,
thank you for this opportunity to discuss H.R. 2403, the
Menstrual Hygiene Products in Federal Buildings Act, and H.R.
1882, the Menstrual Equity for All Act of 2019.
Before I get to my legislation I want to also thank this
committee for your continued support of the critical issue of
combating aviation noise, an issue that is so important in my
district of Queens. As a founding member and former cochair of
the Quiet Skies Caucus, I have worked on numerous initiatives,
many with your committee, to mitigate the deafening airplane
noise that has plagued my district for way too long.
I thank the committee staff and your leadership on these
issues, and look forward to continuing this work as I look to
reintroduce legislation such as the Quiet Communities Act and
the Airplane Noise Research and Mitigation Act.
I am here today to specifically discuss the issue of
menstrual equity and the importance of accessing and affording
feminine hygiene products. To note, the Menstrual Hygiene
Products in Federal Buildings Act is a standalone measure of my
larger comprehensive Menstrual Equity for All Act.
Mr. Chair and Mr. Ranking Member, I know menstrual hygiene
products is not the first thing that comes to mind when we talk
about transportation and infrastructure, but it is a relevant
issue and an important one. Access to safe, affordable
menstrual hygiene products is a basic need and a healthcare
right for 51 percent of the U.S. population.
It is estimated that a woman will use up to 16,000 tampons
in her life, which equates to at least $7,000 over the course
of her life. One might think these products are ubiquitous and
cheap, but many women face difficulty when it comes to
affording and accessing them. I know this because I have heard
heartbreaking testimonies from countless girls and women from
across our Nation and around the world. No girl, no one, should
have to choose between their dignity or their education.
As a matter of fact, I am proud that since July 2018 all
public schools in New York State provide free menstrual hygiene
products. In addition, just because someone is incarcerated or
homeless they should not be deprived of their dignity. And no
family should have to choose between buying these products or
groceries. To address the many hardships that different women
and girls face in affording and accessing these products, my
bill seeks to address this issue holistically.
Specifically, as it relates to this committee and the
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and
Emergency Management, H.R. 2403 and the relevant section of
H.R. 1882 would require all public Federal buildings to provide
free menstrual hygiene products in the restrooms.
As of a few months ago, right here in the people's House,
menstrual products are now available in the House office supply
store, and these items are purchasable using our Members
Representational Allowance. I was proud to have worked with my
colleagues, Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney, a member of this
committee; Congressman Debbie Wasserman Schultz; and
Congresswoman Norma Torres to make this positive change for our
staff and visitors.
I am also thankful to the Committee on House
Administration's chairwoman, Ms. Lofgren, and ranking member,
Mr. Davis, also a member of this committee, for their swift
support on this issue.
The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the country.
It is estimated that there are 2.1 million Federal civilian
workers. This number doesn't even include the millions of
contractors, grant employees, and others that make up our
entire Federal workforce. The issue of affordability and
accessibility is everywhere.
As we saw and heard during the Government shutdown, there
were countless Federal employees and their families who were in
desperate need of feminine products such as pads, tampons, even
diapers and baby formula. It is time that our Government
finally walks the walk and sets an example by providing
products in all Federal buildings, just as they do toilet
paper, paper towels, and hand soap. Doing so will help
alleviate the real-life barriers in accessing and affording
these everyday products, while normalizing this monthly
necessity and basic human right.
Thank you again for this opportunity to come before your
committee. I am especially grateful to the seven members of
this committee who have cosponsored H.R. 1882, including
Chairwoman Titus. As Members of Congress we should ensure that
women and girls have access to safe, quality, and affordable
feminine hygiene products, however and wherever we can, period.
Thank you, I yield back.
[Ms. Meng's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Grace Meng, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Chairwoman Titus and
Ranking Member Meadows, and distinguished members of this Committee,
thank you for this opportunity to discuss H.R. 1882--the Menstrual
Equity for All Act of 2019. Before I get to my legislation, I want to
also thank this committee for your continued support of the critical
issue of combatting aviation noise--an issue that is so important in my
district of Queens.
As a founding member and former co-chair of the Quiet Skies Caucus,
I have worked on numerous initiatives--many with your committee--to
mitigate the deafening airplane noise that has plagued my district for
way too long. I thank the committee staff and your leadership on these
issues--and look forward to continuing this work, as I look to
reintroduce legislation such as the Quiet Communities Act.
I am here today to specifically discuss the Menstrual Equity for
All Act of 2019, and to share the importance of accessing and affording
feminine hygiene products.
Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves, Chairwoman Titus and
Ranking Member Meadows, I know menstrual hygiene products is not the
first thing that comes to mind when we say: ``Transportation and
Infrastructure.'' But it IS a relevant issue--and an important one.
Access to safe, affordable menstrual hygiene products is a basic
need and a health care right for 51 percent of the U.S. population. It
is a human right.
It is estimated that a woman will use up to 16,000 tampons in her
lifetime, which equates to at least $7,000 over the course of her life.
One might think these products are ubiquitous and cheap, but many
women face difficulty when it comes to affording and accessing them. I
know this because I have heard the heartbreaking testimonies from
countless girls and women from across our nation. No girl--no one--
should have to choose between their dignity or their education.
That is why I am also proud to share that since July 2018, all
public schools in New York State provides free menstrual hygiene
products.
To address this issue holistically and widely, Menstrual Equity for
All Act seeks to help the variety of individuals who are impacted by
accessibility and affordability issues. For instance, this legislation
aims to:
Give states the option to use federal grant funds to
provide students with free menstrual hygiene products in schools;
Ensure that incarcerated individuals and detainees in
federal, state, and local facilities have access to these products;
Allow homeless assistance providers to use grant funds
that cover shelter necessities to also use those funds to purchase
these products; and
Direct large employers with 100 or more employees to
provide free menstrual hygiene products for their employees.
Most notably, as it relates to this committee, and specifically the
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management, my bill would require all public federal buildings to
provide free menstrual hygiene products in the restrooms.
The U.S. government is the largest employer in the country. It is
estimated that there are 2.1 million federal civilian workers. This
number does not even include the millions of contractors, grant
employees, and others that make up our entire federal workforce. The
issue of affordability and accessibility is everywhere--even within
this workforce. As we saw and heard during the recent partial
government shutdown, there were countless federal employees and their
families who were in desperate need of feminine products--such as pads
and tampons, plus diapers and formula.
It is time that our government finally walks the walk and sets an
example by providing free menstrual hygiene products in all federal
buildings. Doing so will help alleviate the real-life barriers in
accessing and affording these everyday products--while normalizing this
monthly necessity and basic human right.
Thank you again for this opportunity to come before your committee.
As Members of Congress, we should ensure that women and girls have
access to safe, quality and affordable feminine hygiene products,
however--and wherever--we can. Period.
Mr. DeFazio [presiding]. Thank you, Representative Meng,
for that testimony. And, you know, the Federal Government is
the largest lessor of commercial space in the country, and your
ideas on the Government leading the way through our leased
Federal properties and GSA is excellent and well taken. So I
thank you for your advocacy. Thanks for your testimony.
Any questions?
Apparently not. Thank you.
In order of arrival next would be Representative King from
Iowa.
TESTIMONY OF HON. STEVE KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF IOWA
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before your committee. And Ranking
Member Pence, as well.
The number of things on infrastructure that came to mind
when I saw the announcement that came out--I think a handshake
on approaching this infrastructure in a more aggressive way
than we have in the past.
And things I wanted to point out to the to the committee,
16 years ago I signed on to support the Lewis and Clark Rural
Water System, and that addresses some 20 communities in South
Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa. We have always fallen short on the
funding for that, and so we have limped along.
But what has happened is the local governments' commitment
have all been paid upfront, they paid it all upfront, and it is
the Federal Government that is dragging along here, trying to
catch up. So I wanted to emphasize how important it is to
complete and finish Lewis and Clark Rural Water.
And then the next piece that I wanted to address was the
locks and dams. I represent the Missouri River side of Iowa,
but the locks and dams on the Mississippi River have fallen
into disrepair, we have had high waters that make it even
worse.
And I would note to the committee that we built those locks
and dams back during the Great Depression, when America was
limping along with a terrible economy, and now we are in a
place where we have a 3-percent-plus GDP growth, and we need to
restore the locks and dams, and we need to expand them for the
size of river traffic that we do have. And it is very energy
efficient, going up and down the river. And it is
environmentally friendly to do that.
So I focus on the locks and dams, and make another point
also, that in 2011 we had more water come down the Missouri
River than ever before.
The Pick-Sloan program, which built six dams in the upper
Missouri River to protect us from flooding, the primary purpose
of it was designed to accommodate the largest runoff ever. When
they designed it, it was 1888 that the largest runoff came
down.
Now it is 2011, and we saw more water below those dams this
spring than ever before.
And I have great sympathy for my neighbors across to the
west in Nebraska, who probably took the hit three or four times
worse than we did in Iowa. And, of course, it was bad enough in
Iowa. So that is some resources that--we will know how to put
them to work.
And also we have got 41 breaches in our levees along that
stretch, just on the Iowa side of the Missouri River, that were
created this spring.
And then I want to mention the utilities that were focused
on roads and bridges and transportation with the announcement--
as I just quickly reviewed it, Mr. Chairman. And there is
another component to this, and that is the utility side, the
wastewater, stormwater, that entire infrastructure that is
necessary to keep our towns and cities up and functioning.
And if it is going to be only a transportation approach to
this, then we are going to have trouble addressing the
utilities side of it, the infrastructure on our utilities.
But here is the real point that I have not raised before
this committee or raised, I don't think, as effectively as I
should have done in the time I have been in this Congress.
So I am going to take you back to some numbers from about
2003 or so, when Mr. Don Young was the chairman of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. And I put it
together that--a pie chart of what happened with our road use--
we call it road use tax dollar, or user fee is a happier term
to use, and I support that.
But when people put the nozzle in the tank, they expect to
be paying that for roads and bridges, which is the focus of
this infrastructure discussion.
And so I broke that dollar down for each dollar coming in.
Old numbers, I admit. They probably haven't changed that much.
There was--according to the committee then, as much as 28
percent of that dollar was going to pay for environmental and
archeological--that sounds pretty high to me, but that was the
number that I recall from back then; 17 percent went to mass
transit; 3 percent went to trails.
You know that I have been one who has worked diligently to
repeal Davis-Bacon. That might be our disagreement point, Mr.
Chairman, but that is about 20 percent, by our numbers.
Now, this pie chart, when you look at it in your mind's
eye, leaves only one-third of each dollar that goes actually to
roads and bridges. And we are paying for the balance of this
out of the general fund and going into debt.
So I would suggest that we get the maximum amount of
dollars out of that road use fund, however we negotiate that,
however we define it, and bring this down to where, if we have
to go outside that fund for other things, let's go out of the
general fund for the pieces that are not roads and bridges,
rather than keeping it all together. Because the public wants
to pay the user fee for roads and bridges with their gas tax.
And I would ask let's change that formula.
I see my clock has run out. I appreciate your attention,
and I would yield back the imbalance of my time.
[Mr. King did not submit a prepared statement.]
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. I
think you will be pleased to hear that, during the discussion
with President Trump yesterday, that water--clean water,
wastewater, and the inland waterways were all subject to the
discussion.
There was no significant discussion on how this is going to
be paid for. I expect, for transportation, we would be looking
at some combination of bonding and user fees. Some of the other
areas I am not so certain. We are going to have a subsequent
meeting to have those discussions, and hopefully can come to
some agreement. This should be a paid-for package, as we move
forward.
So I appreciate your concern and want you to know that
those things were raised, so--and you are not the first person
today to talk about the inland waterways, which are kind of an
afterthought a lot of the time.
Mr. King. Yes.
Mr. DeFazio. And they shouldn't be, because of the critical
nature of their contribution to commerce.
Do any members of the committee have questions?
OK. With that, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
Tom O'Halleran from Arizona was the next arrived, so I
recognize him for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. TOM O'HALLERAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio and Ranking
Member Pence, for scheduling this Members' Day and sitting up
there listening so much. I appreciate that very much.
I don't have water on my list, but I do want to mention
water very briefly. We have a little bit of a problem on the
Colorado River, and would appreciate--all of the seven basin
States would like to see some of that addressed through this
process.
I would like to highlight one of the problems impacting
Arizona's First Congressional District. In the past this
committee has addressed many of the infrastructure issues
impacting my district, and I thank you for that--and other
parts of the country. And I hope we can continue that work in a
bipartisan effort.
In Arizona the Indian School Bus Route Maintenance Program
has enabled young students to receive educational opportunities
that were once unavailable. The program was funded at only $1.8
million, annually. More than 9,000 miles of road, or two-thirds
of public roads on the Navajo Reservation, are unpaved. These
roads can become impassable during snowy and rainy weather.
In fact, it is frequent that it happens. We can't get the
elderly folks to hospitals without helicopters. We can't get
the school kids to school safely. And it takes a long time--up
to a week, sometimes--for them to be able to get to school.
This poses many challenges for the families and the children in
the Navajo Nation. When road conditions are poor, school buses
simply cannot bring kids to school safely. Navajo children
repeatedly find themselves stranded without any way to get to
their classroom.
GAO found evidence of this problem in 2017. The report
found that road conditions can be a barrier to attendance, and
that the Department of Education data shows that Native
American children have a chronic absence rate that is 9 percent
higher than non-Native children.
I ask this committee, as part of the transportation
reauthorization bill, to reauthorize the Indian School Bus
Route Maintenance Program, and help to get Native American
children back to school.
Second, I strongly support this committee providing a
multiyear reauthorization bill that addresses the pending
insolvency with the Highway Trust Fund. In its current state,
the Highway Trust Fund will run out of money in 2021, which
will force Arizona to severely cut its expenditures and
negatively impact its ability to respond to emerging needs in
2022. A long-term reauthorization measure will allow Arizona
and other States to strategically plan critical infrastructure
projects, which are critical not only because of need, but
because of the need for long-range planning on almost all of
these projects.
I also support bringing back flexibility to Highway Safety
Improvement Program funds, and also the law currently requires
that program funds can only be spent on infrastructure
construction projects, which is, again, problematic. However,
allowing the funds to be used on education and safety
enforcement programs will also help reduce highway injuries and
fatalities.
Additionally, I support allowing State highway departments
to transfer funds between programs to meet emerging needs. This
would give States another tool when meeting budget constraints.
Finally, I would like to express my support for a change in
the law which prohibits commercial activities on interstates
built after 1960. This unfair prohibition negatively affects
highway systems in Western States more because their highways
developed later in time than in the East.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention broadband, and the
need for that, and the continuing lack of broadband throughout
rural America. And, in fact, as G5 starts to become more
prevalent, the gap between rural areas and urban areas is going
to increase significantly if we don't address the problem. By
fixing this problem--this and other problems--Congress puts all
States on equal footing, and creates another tool to help meet
the construction and maintenance needs of our States and our
country.
Thank you for the time. I look forward to working with this
committee in the future. Thank you very much.
[Mr. O'Halleran's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom O'Halleran, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Arizona
Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves:
Thank you for scheduling this Member Day for the Transportation and
& Infrastructure Committee.
Today, I would like to highlight one of the problems impacting
Arizona's First Congressional District.
In the past, this Committee has addressed many of the
infrastructure issues impacting my District and other rural parts of
the country, and I hope we can continue that work.
In Arizona, the Indian School Bus Route Maintenance Program has
enabled young students to receive educational opportunities once
thought unavailable.
Unfortunately, in 2012, this program expired, and since then Navajo
children have struggled.
More than 9000 miles--or about two-thirds of public roads on the
Nation--are unpaved.
These roads can become impassable during rainy or snowy weather.
This poses many challenges for the families and children on the
Navajo Nation.
When road conditions are poor, school buses simply cannot bring
kids to school safely. Navajo children repeatedly find themselves
stranded without a way to get to the classroom and their teachers.
GAO found evidence of this problem in a 2017 study. The report
found that road conditions can be a barrier to attendance and that
Department of Education data shows that Native American children have a
chronic absence rate that is 9 percent higher than non-Native children.
I ask this Committee, as part of the transportation reauthorization
bill, to reauthorize the Indian School Bus Route Maintenance Program
and help to get Native American children back in school.
Second, I strongly support this Committee providing a multi-year
reauthorization bill that addresses the pending insolvency with the
Highway Trust Fund.
In its current state, the Highway Trust Fund will run out of money
in 2021, which will force Arizona to severely cut its expenditures and
negatively impact its ability to respond to emerging needs in 2022.
A long-term authorization measure will allow Arizona and other
states to strategically plan critical infrastructure projects.
I also support bringing back flexibility to Highway Safety
Improvement Program Funds. As the law requires, program funds can only
be spent on infrastructure construction projects.
However, allowing the funds to be used on education and safety
enforcement programs will also help reducing highway injuries and
fatalities.
Additionally, I support allowing State highway departments to
transfer funds between programs to meet emerging needs. This would give
states another tool when meeting budget constraints.
Finally, I would like to express my support for changing the law
which prohibits commercial activities on interstates built after
January 1, 1960.
This unfair prohibition negatively affects highway systems in
Western States more because their highways were developed later in time
than in the East.
By fixing this problem Congress puts all States on equal footing
and creates another tool to help meet the construction and maintenance
needs of rest areas.
Thank you for the time. I look forward to working with this
Committee in the future.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman for his testimony.
You will be pleased to hear that broadband was a consensus
item yesterday during the infrastructure discussions with the
President. And issues of rural equity, and even in urban areas,
were raised very, very much by Representative Lujan and
Representative Clyburn, and everyone agreed to the need.
On Indian country, in the last surface transportation bill
I put in authority to allow self-governance by Tribes. I grant
you that the amount of money flowing to the Tribes is
inadequate, and we will try and rectify that, especially if we
get additional revenues.
DOT has been remiss in consulting with the Tribes and
writing the regulations. I think we got them back on track, and
I have been told by Tribal members that they are fairly
optimistic we will get a good rule, and we will have self-
governance for anything that relates to their transportation
infrastructures--they will be better able to target what they
know is their need, as opposed to what the State DOT or the
Feds think are their needs.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. So thank you for your advocacy.
Does anyone have any questions?
OK. All right. Thank you, I appreciate it. And next is
Representative Tony Cardenas from California, recognized for 5
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. TONY CARDENAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I look
forward to seeing your picture on the wall here, your portrait.
There is not much room after Mr. Young's big portrait.
Well, thank you for this opportunity to present, and I
would like to take a point of personal privilege at the moment
to recognize one of our former colleagues, Howard Berman,
Congressman Howard Berman, who is present with us, a great
Member of Congress, and a great Member from the State of
California. I stand on his shoulders and the shoulders of many.
Thank you for hosting this event and providing a platform
for Members to speak out about their priorities in your
committee.
Yesterday my colleagues and I reintroduced the National
Museum of the American Latino Act. This bill is bipartisan and
bicameral, and would act on the commission's report by
initiating the process of establishing a new Smithsonian Museum
on the National Mall dedicated to highlighting the
contributions of American Latinos to the world. As one of the
overseeing committees, we urge you to consider this bill for a
hearing and markup in the session of this Congress.
This is something that has been talked about and worked on
for many decades, and including the Smithsonian, which has
failed to act on most of its own recommendations made in a 1994
report that has yet to cooperate with Congress to launch a new
Latino museum. That is a report that is 25 years old, and they
have yet to act on those items that they actually admit they
need to improve when it comes to Latino inclusion in their
Smithsonian organization.
These facts have been documented in the UCLA's Latino
Policy and Politics Initiative report, which is called
``Invisible No More,'' released on September 10, 2018. To add,
in 2008 a Presidential commission created by President George
W. Bush--his administration established a commission to study
the creation of a national museum of the American Latino. The
23-member commission issued its final report in 2011,
recommending that the museum should be built near the Capitol,
and that the museum be part of the Smithsonian Institution.
Highlighting in the report, I quote, ``The Mall, more than
any other public space in our country does indeed tell the
story of America, and yet that story is not complete. There
must also be a living monument that recognizes that Latinos
were here well before 1776 and that in this new century, the
future is increasingly Latino, more than 50 million and
growing.''
Well, actually, ladies and gentlemen, today, at 58 million,
Latinos are the Nation's largest ethnic group in America. We,
Latinos, have played a positive and dynamic part in weaving the
fabric of the United States of America's past and present. The
Latino contribution has always been and always will be a
positive and beautiful force in our country.
Again, we encourage the committee's consideration of the
National Museum of the American Latino Act, which will
establish the first Smithsonian Institution museum dedicated to
the history and contributions of Latinos in America.
I also want to point out that Latinos' contributions are in
science and art, and with the labor force, and the economics of
this great country. Being the number-one economic engine
country in the world, I would like to point out as a
representative of California, California has the fifth largest
economy, if it were its own country. However, I point out that
when my father and when my grandfather came to this country to
work in the fields, they were working in the number-one economy
of the State of California, agriculture, using their backs to
be the backbone of that industry. And that is still the number-
one economy of the great State of California to this day. And
in large part, the major backbone of the workforce of that
community are immigrants, mainly Latinos.
I also point out that the stories are even more beautiful
than that. I went to college with a buddy of mine, Jose
Hernandez. We were both engineering students. He grew up in the
Central Valley, I grew up in Los Angeles. We met on that
university campus, and we graduated together as engineering
students. And I didn't know at the time, but I found out later
that when he was a young boy he used to actually work in the
fields to help his family on his way to go to school as a
little boy. Later on he ended up going to that university, and
dreamed of being an astronaut. He has orbited the earth, and he
has become the second Latino astronaut in the history of the
United States to go into space.
I am very privileged and honored to call him my friend and
my colleague, but also at the same time I think the rest of
America needs to know of his contribution and the fact that he
and his family are an integral part of this great country.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[Mr. Cardenas' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tony Cardenas, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
In September 2018, the UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Initiative
released a report called Invisible No More. The report highlighted the
Smithsonian Institution's failure in implementing seven of the ten
recommendations it put forth to improve representation of Latinos in
its 25 year old, 1994 report, Willful Neglect.
In 2008, a Presidential commission created by President George W.
Bush's administration established a Commission to Study the creation of
a National Museum of the American Latino. The 23-member commission
issued its final report in 2011 recommending that the Museum be built
near the Capitol and that the museum be part of the Smithsonian
Institution. Taken from the report, ``The Mall, more than any other
public space in our country does indeed tell the story of America, and
yet that story is not complete. There must also be a living monument
that recognizes that Latinos were here well before 1776 and that in
this new century, the future is increasingly Latino, more than fifty
million people and growing.''
In 2019, Latinos make up 58 million of the population, 18%, and are
the nation's largest ethnic group in America. To this day, the
Smithsonian has not publicly presented a plan to build a Smithsonian
Institution Museum dedicated to the history and contributions of
Latinos in America.
Yesterday, my colleagues and I reintroduced The National Museum of
the American Latino Act. This bill is bipartisan and bicameral and
would act on the Commission's report by initiating the process of
establishing a new Smithsonian museum on the National Mall dedicated to
highlighting the American Latino experience to the world--from serving
in all American wars to influencing our economy, the arts, and sports.
In its current form, this bill would be referred primarily to House
Administration, with additional referrals to Natural Resources and
Transportation & Infrastructure. I ask for all overseeing committees to
consider this bill and as one of the overseeing committees we urge the
Committee's consideration of the National Museum of the American Latino
Act in this session of Congress.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you very much for your testimony. I will
tell you how subterranean the commission report is. It is the
first I have heard of it, to tell the truth, and I have been on
this committee a long time. So I will bring it up with
Representative Titus, who chairs the relevant subcommittee. And
I grant you it is a long-overdue recognition.
Just one quick question--have they designated a spot? That
is usually the most difficult part of it, is siting.
Mr. Cardenas. Yes. Yes, it is. And as a former real estate
broker myself, I am excited to actually be part of that
analysis and those discussions to try to figure out what the
most appropriate spot is on the Smithsonian grounds.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Well, we will look forward to hearing more
about that. Thank you very much.
Anyone--you have any questions? No? OK.
Thanks, I appreciate it.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Representative Lofgren was next,
also from California.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. A large part of our Congress is from
California.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, that is--you know, we are helping out.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio and Ranking
Member. I chair the California Democratic congressional
delegation, and I am the cochair of the California High-Speed
Rail Caucus, along with Representatives Jim Costa and Lou
Correa. And I would like to reaffirm the delegation's support
for the California high-speed rail project.
The high-speed rail project is the largest and most
ambitious infrastructure endeavor currently underway in
America. When completed, it will move people swiftly between
California's economic centers and will ease congestion and
improve air quality in California, while creating thousands of
jobs. With the support of about $19 billion in State funding
and $3.5 billion in Federal funding, construction is well
underway in the Central Valley on the first segment of the
Nation's only true high-speed rail project.
Governor Gavin Newsom recently reaffirmed his commitment to
completing the ``Valley to Valley'' project. Environmental
reviews on this and all other planned segments, spanning from
San Francisco to Los Angeles and Anaheim, are underway and
expected to be completed within the next 2 years. The project
has also provided $713 million towards the electrification of
the Caltrans between--high-speed rail between San Jose and San
Francisco.
I encourage the committee to maintain support for this
path-breaking high-speed rail project, and to help California
accelerate the completion of the ``Valley to Valley'' project
that is connecting the Central Valley of California to Silicon
Valley, where I live. High housing costs and traffic congestion
has sharply increased the demand for a Silicon Valley to
Central Valley high-speed rail line in California, since voters
approved the $9 million initial downpayment in 2008.
We in San Jose know firsthand the traffic congestion and
affordable housing challenges in the bay area. We are among the
top five gridlocked cities in the United States, and the
congestion is just going to grow, as California is projected to
grow 30 percent to 51.1 million people by 2060.
According to the High-Speed Rail Authority, a trip from San
Jose to Fresno, which today takes more than 3 hours, or can
take more than 3 hours, would be reduced to about an hour. The
high-speed rail project will absolutely transform economic
functions in the State of California, and will improve not only
the Silicon Valley, where I live, but the Central Valley, which
has higher unemployment, higher pollution, and is disconnected
from the job-rich Silicon Valley.
It is estimated that to provide the equivalent mobility,
California would need to build 4,000 new freeway lane-miles and
115 airport gates, just to keep up with population growth.
As to home prices, the median price of a house in the San
Francisco Bay area--$845,000 last month was the median. In
Fresno it is $250,000. Obviously, opening up housing
opportunities for people who work in the Silicon Valley and
would like to live in a beautiful place like Fresno will be
made possible through high-speed rail.
And I would urge the committee to consider taking the
following four steps this Congress to help us with this
``Valley to Valley'' segment: first, maintain the rail title
first established in the FAST Act; two, create a new passenger
rail trust fund and identify new long-term funding to increase
Federal investment in high-speed and high-performance intercity
passenger rail; three, make improvements to the Railroad
Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program to better
leverage private-sector investment; and finally, four, allow
for the advance acquisition of railroad right-of-way, which
would help so much on this project, as is permitted for highway
and public transit projects.
I want to thank the committee for allowing Members who
aren't on your committee to come and give you our hopes and
dreams about projects that benefit our State. I thank you for
the hard work you do. And I know that if this high-speed rail
project is completed successfully, it is going to transform the
economy of the State of California. Out of all the jobs created
in California, something like 80 percent last year were created
in the Silicon Valley. We need to make that prosperity
available to other segments of our State. And this project will
help allow that to occur.
And I thank both of you for your courtesy in listening to
me.
[Ms. Lofgren's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
Thank you Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves for allowing
me to participate in today's hearing.
As the Chair of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation
and Co-Chair of the California High-Speed Rail Caucus along with Reps.
Jim Costa and Lou Correa, I would like to reaffirm the Delegation's
strong support for the California High Speed Rail Project.
The California High Speed Rail project is the largest and most
ambitious infrastructure endeavor of our time. When completed, it will
move people swiftly between California's economic centers and it will
immediately ease congestion and improve air quality in California while
creating thousands of jobs.
With the support of about $19 billion in state funding and $3.5
billion in federal funding, construction is well underway in the
Central Valley on the first segment of the nation's only true high-
speed rail project.
I encourage the committee to maintain support for this pathbreaking
project and to help California accelerate the completion of the
``Valley to Valley'' project connecting the Central Valley segment to
Silicon Valley and San Francisco.
High housing costs and traffic congestion have sharply increased
demand for a Silicon Valley to Central Valley high-speed rail line in
California since voters approved $9 billion as an initial down payment
in 2008.
As a resident of San Jose, I know firsthand the traffic congestion
and affordable housing challenges in Bay Area. San Jose, along with Los
Angeles, and San Francisco, rank among the top five most gridlocked
cities in the nation. And congestion will only become more of a problem
in the future as California's population is projected to grow 30
percent to 51.1 million by 2060.
According to the High-Speed Rail Authority, a trip from San Jose to
Fresno will be reduced from three or more hours to about one hour. This
will transform how the California economy functions and develop
linkages between parts of the state that are disconnected today.
It is estimated that to provide equivalent mobility, California
would need to build more than 4,000 new freeway lane miles, 115 airport
gates and four new runways just to keep up with population growth.
Home prices in the Bay Area have continued to set records. In
October 2018, the median Bay Area home price was $845,000. Meanwhile,
the median in Fresno was below $250,000. A shortened commute between
Silicon Valley and the Central Valley will open an affordable housing
market for those working in the Bay Area and create much needed
economic growth in the Central Valley.
Governor Gavin Newsom recently reaffirmed his commitment to
completing the Valley to Valley project. Environmental reviews on this
and all other planned segments spanning from San Francisco to Los
Angeles and Anaheim are underway and are expected to be completed
within the next two years. The state has also provided for $713 million
towards the electrification of the Caltrain Corridor to carry Caltrain
and high-speed trains from San Jose to San Francisco.
I urge the committee to consider taking the following four steps
this Congress to help California accelerate the completion of the
Valley to Valley segment and to help accelerate high-speed rail
projects throughout the United States:
1) Maintain the Rail Title first established in the FAST Act.
2) Create a new Passenger Rail Trust Fund and identify new, long-
term funding to increase federal investment in high-speed and high-
performance intercity passenger rail.
3) Make improvements to the Railroad Rehabilitation and
Improvement Financing (RRIF) program to better leverage private sector
investment.
4) Allow for advance acquisition of railroad right of way as is
permitted for highway and public transit projects.
I'd like to thank the committee again for this opportunity. I look
forward to working with you to ensure the next transportation
reauthorization keeps builds on our success in California and paves the
way for the next phase of the project.
Rep. Lofgren Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Requests
Maintain the Rail Title first established in the FAST
Act.
Create a separate Passenger Rail Trust Fund and identify
new, long-term, dedicated revenues to significantly increase federal
investment in high-speed and high-performance intercity passenger rail.
Prior to the last Reauthorization, the American Public
Transportation Association (APTA) recommended no less than $60 billion
over six (6) years. Unfortunately funding for passenger rail under the
FAST Act has been extremely limited.
Make improvements to the Railroad Rehabilitation and
Improvement Financing (RRIF) program. The Governor's plan envisions
that that private sector investment will play a major role in financing
the remaining segments between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Authorizing funds for the credit risk premium in RRIF, as is done for
the TIFIA program, would allow states to better leverage private
investments. Further, RRIF loans should expressly be treated as local
share when used together with federal grants.
The Committee should also consider extending the
eligibility of TOD projects for RRIF financing. As we look at the
extraordinary development around rail stations such as the Transbay
Terminal in San Francisco, Google's investment next to the Rod Diridon
Station in San Jose, and similar project planned for Fresno, Los
Angeles and elsewhere, the link between these projects and the rail
systems that spark them, more than justifies eligibility for federal
rail financing.
Ensure that any value capture tax credits authorized
should also apply to equity investments in intercity passenger rail
projects so that they may benefit from increased property values their
projects bring to surrounding communities.
Make new intercity and high-performance passenger rail
projects eligible for advance acquisition of railroad right of way like
that permitted for highway and public transit projects. This will
permit projects to quickly enter into construction once environmental
approvals are obtained, without the delays due to failure to obtain
essential property rights in advance of contract approval that has
hampered the start-up of the Central Valley Segment.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady, and in particular
thank you for the suggestions regarding how we can better
facilitate this high-speed rail project and future projects.
I just want to opine that I traveled to Spain a number
times over the years. And when they built their first leg of
true high-speed rail down to the coast, it was--you know,
everybody is like--and then, after a lot of people in Spain got
to ride, they said, ``Wait a minute, why did they get that?''
And now they have gone all the way around the country, and
it has transformed things there. People do travel very long
distances very dependably to work in Madrid because of the
high-speed rail. So you are exactly right in how that could
facilitate in spreading a little more job opportunity and
wealth to Jim's district and elsewhere in the State. So thanks
for your advocacy, I appreciate that.
You have any questions?
OK, no questions. Thank you. OK, Mary Gay Scanlon arrived
next, so I recognize her for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. MARY GAY SCANLON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Ms. Scanlon. OK. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio and members of
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. It is a
privilege to testify before you today on a range of issues of
concern to my district.
So the Fifth Congressional District of Pennsylvania is not
only a major transportation quarter for the Northeast United
States, having the I-95 corridor, Amtrak, et cetera, but it is
also home to large transportation and infrastructure entities,
such as the Philadelphia International Airport, the
Philadelphia Port, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority, the Philadelphia Shipyard, and the Philadelphia Navy
Yard. Thousands of my constituents work in these industries and
rely on continued investment in them in order to provide for
their families and support their businesses.
Two weeks ago I hosted a bipartisan transportation
infrastructure forum with Members from our regional delegation
at the Philadelphia Navy Yard. We were able to bring together
many interested parties to discuss the needs of our region that
would benefit from a substantial Federal infrastructure
package. Participants included the CEO Council for Growth, a
consortium of major industry leaders in Philadelphia, as well
as labor leaders, policymakers, and other local groups.
The hearing touched on many aspects of infrastructure
improvements, from improving roads and bridges and rail
service, to providing funding for public school infrastructure,
and ensuring that we have a trained workforce ready to get to
work as soon as possible.
We saw strong bipartisan interest in getting infrastructure
done, and heard repeated expressions of hope that all Members
of Congress and the administration would work together to get
an infrastructure bill across the finish line: a hope that I
share.
As you consider passing an infrastructure bill, I ask you
to consider Pennsylvania's experience with infrastructure in
2013. Our State legislature was able to work in a bipartisan
manner to address our most pressing infrastructure needs
because that is what was best for all of our communities.
Act 89 resulted in the advancement of 2,600 transportation
projects across the State, including rebuilding a railroad
bridge that dated back to Grover Cleveland's administration
just a few blocks from my house. These projects didn't just
improve our roads, they provided jobs to thousands of
Pennsylvanians and reduced costs for businesses.
We know that for every dollar spent on infrastructure we
see somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 in return.
Infrastructure is truly one of the smartest investments we can
make as a Nation, and will benefit every single community.
Among the many concerns I hear from my district are the
need to properly fund the Highway Trust Fund and Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund; to reauthorize the FAST Act; and to
adjust the cap on the passenger facility charge; as well as to
ensure that any repairs or construction are completed by a
well-trained local workforce and in an environmentally
sustainable manner.
I am heartened by the preliminary discussions between the
administration and congressional leadership to pursue a
substantial bipartisan infrastructure package. But the longer
we wait, the more our communities will continue to erode. The
American Society of Civil Engineers rated Pennsylvania's
infrastructure at a C-, only slightly better than the Nation's
overall grade of D+, but not enough to assure our constituents
that we are doing all we can to help fix these problems.
Also, it is not enough to rebuild our infrastructure in the
way that we have in the past. We have learned a lot about
environmentally sustainable building practices, and it is
critical that we use these technologies, and that they are
prioritized in an infrastructure package.
I am hopeful that any infrastructure bill that comes out of
this House has significant direct Federal investment in our
communities and provides the ability to leverage private
dollars to make necessary improvements.
In the case of airports, I support adjusting the passenger
facility charge so that our airports can raise revenue to make
necessary improvements and increase competition. Adjusting the
cap on the PFC would allow airports to grow and to invest
billions in our airports without laying the burden on
taxpayers.
Grant programs such as INFRA and BUILD also have been
useful tools for funding infrastructure initiatives in my
district, and I would encourage the committee to continue to
fund programs like these.
Having visited a number of schools during our recent
district week, I want to urge that the most important
investment that we can make is in our people, and particularly
in our youth. I believe school infrastructure investments
should be included in any infrastructure package, including
projects such as those in Representative Bobby Scott's Rebuild
America's Schools Act, that would help make long-term
improvements to our public schools, alleviating overcrowding,
decay, and inadequate learning conditions so that we can
prepare students for 21st-century jobs.
Again, thank you all very much for your time today. I wish
you the best of luck as you take on this necessary and
ambitious challenge.
[Ms. Scanlon's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mary Gay Scanlon, a Representative in
Congress from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, it is a privilege to
testify before you today on a variety of issues of concern to my
district.
The Fifth District of Pennsylvania, my district, is a major
transportation corridor for the Northeast United States and is also
home to large transportation and infrastructure entities such as the
Philadelphia International Airport, PhilaPort, Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, the Philly Shipyard, and the
Philly Navy Yard. Thousands of my constituents work in these industries
and rely on continued investment in them in order to provide for their
families.
In April, I hosted a Transportation and Infrastructure forum in my
district, bringing together many interested parties to discuss the
needs of our region that would come out of a large federal
infrastructure package. These included the CEO Council for Growth--a
major industry consortium in Philadelphia--as well as labor leaders,
engineering firms, and other local groups.
The hearing touched on all aspects of infrastructure improvements,
from improving roads and bridges to providing funding for public school
infrastructure and ensuring we have a trained workforce ready to get to
work as soon as possible.
When you're looking at all of the ways to write this bill, I
encourage you to take a look at how Pennsylvania dealt with
infrastructure in 2013. Pennsylvania is a prime example of how we can
work together in a bipartisan manner to address our most pressing
infrastructure needs. When Act 89 was signed into law in 2013, it
provided a roadmap for what the federal government can achieve if both
sides come together to do what's best for all of our communities.
Act 89 resulted in the advancement of 2,600 transportation projects
across the state. These projects didn't just improve Pennsylvania's
roads, they invested in local economies across the state and provided
thousands of jobs to Pennsylvanians.
We know that for every dollar spent on infrastructure, we see
somewhere in the neighborhood of three dollars in return.
Infrastructure is truly one of the smartest investments we can make as
a nation and will benefit every single community in the United States.
Among the many concerns I hear from my district are the need to
properly fund the Highway Trust Fund and Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund,
reauthorize the FAST Act, remove or adjust the cap on the Passenger
Facility Charge, and ensure that any repairs or construction is
completed by a well-trained local workforce.
I am heartened by the preliminary discussions by the Administration
and Congressional leadership, but the longer we wait the more our
communities will continue to erode. The American Society of Civil
Engineers rated Pennsylvania's infrastructure at ``C Minus,'' slightly
better than the nation's overall grade of ``D Plus,'' but not enough to
assure our constituents that we are doing all we can to help fix these
problems.
But it is not enough to rebuild our infrastructure the way we had
done it decades before. We have learned a lot about environmentally-
sustainable building practices, and it is critical that these
technologies are prioritized in an infrastructure package.
I am hopeful that any infrastructure bill that comes out of this
House has significant direct federal investment into our communities,
and the ability to leverage private dollars to make necessary
improvements. I would further urge the Committee to allow major
transportation entities such as airports to come up with infrastructure
funding parallel to a federal plan. In the case of airports, one such
way that airports can raise revenue to make necessary improvements is
by adjusting the cap on the Passenger Facility Charge.
Adjusting the cap on the PFC would allow airports like PHL to grow,
to be economic drivers, to increase competition, and to invest billions
in our airports without laying the burden on taxpayers.
Given how fraught discussions have already been with regards to
raising revenues to pay for infrastructure investments, it would be in
all of our best interest to allow responsible entities that are able to
raise revenues for infrastructure improvements to do so without
artificial federal caps.
Grant programs such as INFRA and BUILD have also been useful tools
for funding infrastructure initiatives in my district, and I would
encourage the Committee to continue to fund these programs.
The most important investment that we can make is in our people and
particularly, in our youth. That is why I believe school infrastructure
investments should be included in any infrastructure package--including
language, such as that in Representative Bobby Scott's Rebuild
America's Schools Act, that would help provide long-term improvements
to our public schools, alleviating overcrowding and inadequate learning
conditions and helping prepare students for a 21st century jobs.
Thank you all very much for your time today, and I wish you the
best of luck as you take on this necessary and ambitious challenge.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady for her testimony. The
things you mentioned were all brought up with the President
yesterday. He was particularly interested in the Harbor
Maintenance when I mentioned that there was a large, unspent
balance. And he turned to his staff and said, ``Fix that.'' So
I am going to get some hope with that, I hope.
And then I appreciate your raising PFCs. We are in a
titanic battle with the airlines. They would have you believe
if your passenger facility charge to have more gates and planes
not waiting on the tarmac and people not jammed into inadequate
space--that if you pay a couple bucks more, you never fly
again. But they will charge another $10 for your bag next week,
and you are going to thank them and smile. So it will be a fun
debate.
So thanks very much, I appreciate your testimony.
Next? OK. Back to California, the Honorable Jim Costa. We
are doing it in order of arrivals.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member. I want to thank this committee for providing the
opportunity for Members to make their presentations on
important priorities and projects, not only for our districts,
but for the entire country.
I think that one of the most important things that we can
do in this Congress on a bipartisan effort would be a major
infrastructure package. And I know the chair is very keen on
this, as well as many other Members.
I am somewhat more hopeful, I think, today, after the
meeting that was reported yesterday that the Chair participated
in with other Members of the Democratic leadership. I think the
investment of $2 trillion in America's infrastructure is
probably on point, it is probably actually greater than that.
Testimony last month between business and labor before Ways and
Means Committee estimated a similar number. We have at least a
$1 trillion backlog, just to rehabilitate existing
infrastructure. And when we talk about the kind of investments
we need to be making for the future in the 21st century, that
is at least another $1 trillion.
And the reality is that we are living off the investments
our parents and our grandparents made a generation and two ago.
And when we go to Europe and when we go to Asia and we see the
wonderful infrastructure that is there, guess what? It is there
because they paid for it. They made the investment.
Now, while we can all agree that Republicans and Democrats
alike want to invest in infrastructure, we know where the big
obstacle has been recently, and that is how you fund it.
This can't happen unless we can agree upon real money. I
was in some of the initial conversations last year in the White
House, and they had a framework, but they had no meat on the
bone. And the meat on the bone is how do you fund this, because
it doesn't become real.
We have almost 30 States, including California, that have
come up to the plate, so to speak. In California we have passed
a 10-year program for $50 billion in investment, and over 20
States have done similarly that are Republican-controlled
legislatures. So this could be bipartisan.
We haven't increased the gas tax since 1994. I don't think
there is one single funding formula to deal with it. I think we
have to look at a menu of funding formulas that will work that
will invest it.
So where do we go? We need to look at water. Our
infrastructure is aging, not only in clean drinking water, but
in water supply.
In terms of climate change, clearly we need to understand
that the food that goes on America's dinner table every night
doesn't happen unless we have a reliable water supply. And with
climate changing out in the West and other parts of the
country, we know how critical that water resource is. But we
have many communities that are suffering from not having
adequate clean drinking water, as well.
We have boating and harbors that also need to be invested
in.
Let's talk about transportation. Clearly, this is the focus
of this committee, and our roadways are aging, our bridges and
such. This will be key. Having carried multibillion-dollar
measures in California to fund our transportation system, I can
tell you that it is a mix of using all the transportation
modes, because there is no single one mode that is going to
deal with commerce, deal with moving people back and forth, and
using 21st-century technologies.
As a cochair, along with Congresswoman Lofgren and
Congressman Lou Correa, for the high-speed rail effort in
California, having carried the original high-speed rail measure
that would provide multibillion-dollar funding at the State
level, we need the Feds to step up to the plate. We have
corridors in Florida, Texas, California and other parts of the
country.
And guess what? When you look at those marvelous high-speed
rail systems in Europe and in Japan and in China, it wasn't
rocket science in how they built them. They built them because
the national governments decided that they wanted to make a
commitment, and they would make it happen. And they have made
that long-term commitment.
You know, I wonder today, when we talk about high-speed
rail, if President Lincoln had been posed with the same
question during the Civil War, during inflation, during perhaps
the most divisive time in our country's history, and they said,
``Gee, Abe, why don't you wait until your second term?'' I mean
it happens when you put real money to make it happen.
And so I think matching funds, I think we should reward
States in all modes, whether we are talking about high-speed
rail, whether we are talking about roadways, freeways, bridges.
For States and local governments that have skin in the game, we
ought to reward them.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I commit to helping this
committee and this Congress pass this bipartisan infrastructure
package because it is not only our future, but it is jobs, and
it will improve the economy, and we should not forget that.
Thank you.
[Mr. Costa's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. I want to
thank this committee for providing the opportunity for Members to
present on our priorities and projects, not only for our respective
districts but also for our country.
I think one of the most important things we can do in this Congress
would be a major, bipartisan infrastructure package. I know that the
Chair, and many other members, are keen on the idea. I am more hopeful
after yesterday's meeting with the Chair and other Democratic
Leadership. An investment of 2 trillion dollars in America's
infrastructure is on point. Testimony last month before the Ways and
Means Committee between business and labor estimated a similar figure.
We have at least a trillion dollars dedicated to rehabilitating
existing infrastructure. In addition to that, the necessary future
investment will be at least another trillion dollars.
The reality is that we are living off the investments that our
parents (and our grandparents) made a generation (or two) ago. Look at
the success Asian or European infrastructure renewal. Guess what? It's
only there because they paid for it. They made the investment. We can
all agree that Democrats and Republicans all want to invest in
infrastructure. But we can also all recognize the main obstacle to that
goal: how to fund it. This can't happen unless we can agree upon real
money. The White House put forward a framework last year, but it had no
meat-on-the-bone. They didn't put forward any funding plan. Without it,
it an infrastructure plan cannot become real.
Many states--including my home state of California--have come up to
the plate. In California, we passed a 10-year program for $50 billion
dollars in investment. Over 20 other states, many with Republican-
controlled legislatures, have passed similar measures. We haven't
increased the gas since 1994. I don't think that there is one single
funding formula. Instead, we should look at a menu of choices. So where
do we go?
We need to look at water. Our water infrastructure is aging. We
absolutely need to invest in clean drinking water. At the same time, we
also need to invest in our overall water supply. The food on American
tables every night depends on a reliable water supply. The reality of
climate change has made reliable water reserves even more critical.
On transportation, our roadways and bridges are aging.
Transportation infrastructure renewal will be key. Having carried
multi-billion dollar measures in California to fund our transportation
system, I can tell you it's a mix of using all modes of transportation.
There is no single mode of transportation that addresses all needs.
Furthermore, we need to update and invest in 21st-century technologies.
Along with co-chairs Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren and Congressman Lou
Correa, I have worked to provide billions of dollars of state money for
High Speed Rail in California. But now we need the Federal Government
to step up to the plate.
And guess what? It's no mystery how Europe, Japan, and China built
their high-speed rail system. It's not rocket science. They were able
to build them because their national governments decided to make a
commitment. They made it happen; they made a long-term commitment. I
wonder how President Lincoln would have reacted, posed with the
question of the transcontinental rail road during the Civil War, to
critics who said, `Abe, why don't you wait until your second term?'
It happens only when you put real money on the table to make it
happen. I think we should reward states for investing in all modes of
transportation--whether that's high speed rail, roadways, freeways, or
bridges. I think we should match funds and reward states and local
governments that have skin in the game.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I commit to helping this committee and
this Congress to pass this bipartisan infrastructure package because
it's not just our future, it is also jobs, and it will improve our
economy. I look forward to working with you on this critical issue. We
have our work cut out for us. I believe with the right attitude--and
real money--we can make it happen.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. I thank him for his
advocacy on the Ways and Means Committee, and look forward to
working with you on funding mechanisms. We didn't come to
resolution of that part yesterday, but we are committed to
discussing that in the next meeting. And I remain hopeful that
we can move forward.
And also your point about self-help is well taken. Last
year's proposal by the administration would have rewarded
future self-help, and I said, ``Well, wait a minute. You are
going to have to do a little bit of a look-back for those
States that already did a heavy lift,'' because a State that
hasn't done anything in 20 years, won't be too hard for them to
actually do something. But States that have already made a
major contribution shouldn't be penalized. So that is going to
be a tricky part of the bill, but I am definitely going to work
on that.
Mr. Costa. And I look forward to working with you on it. It
is critical, and we have our work cut out for us. But I think
if we have the right attitude and we put the real money there,
we can make it happen.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. I thank the gentleman. If there are
no questions, thank you.
And next? OK. Nydia Velazquez from New York would be next
in order of arrival.
Nydia?
Ms. Velazquez. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. Chairwoman of the Small Business Committee.
TESTIMONY OF HON. NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member, thank you for the opportunity to testify about
a very important piece of oversight legislation, H.R. 229, a
bill to create a 9/11-style commission to investigate the
Federal response to the aftermath of Hurricane Maria.
As you all know, Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico. It
took more than 2 years to fully restore power,
telecommunication services, and potable water. These services
remain spotty in many areas.
The islands suffered over $90 billion in damage, and an
estimated 3,000 people lost their lives, far exceeding the
official numbers reported by the local and Federal Governments
at the time.
My legislation, H.R. 229, will create a nonpartisan
commission to look at how the administration's response to this
disaster was shaped by the artificially low death toll. It will
also examine the adequacy of the steps taken by the Federal
Government to prepare for the hurricanes and what went wrong
with the Federal response in the weeks after the storms made
landfall.
Equally as important, the commission will be tasked with
examining any potential disparities in the Federal response to
Puerto Rico compared with 2017 mainland disasters.
As we have seen, the response in Puerto Rico was slower and
less effective than in places like Texas after Hurricane
Harvey.
Compounding a lackluster Federal response was the series of
botched FEMA contracts that delayed delivery of crucial
supplies such as tarps and meals.
Frustratingly, the Puerto Rican Government continues to
fight FEMA for adequate funding to repair or replace damaged
hospitals, schools, and infrastructure. It is critical that we
get answers to why this administration keeps moving the goal
posts on permanent work projects, while the communities of
Puerto Rico continue to suffer nearly 2\1/2\ years later.
Thousands of our fellow American citizens perished in this
catastrophe. We need an independent, nonpartisan panel to fully
investigate and bring to light all the facts. We also need
recommendations on ways to prevent such a humanitarian
catastrophe from happening again on American soil.
I am confident that H.R. 229 will provide the forum and the
opportunity to get to the bottom of reasons for the abject
failure of the Federal response to the 2017 natural disasters
in Puerto Rico.
And with that I thank the chairman and the ranking member.
[Ms. Velazquez's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Nydia M. Velazquez, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New York
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
about a very important piece of oversight legislation--H.R. 229, a bill
to create a ``9/11-style'' commission to investigate the federal
response to the aftermath of Hurricane Maria.
As you all know, Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico. It took
more than two years to fully restore power, telecommunications
services, and potable water. These services remain spotty in many
areas.
The island suffered over $90 billion in damage, and an estimated
3,000 people lost their lives--far exceeding the official numbers
reported by the local and federal governments at the time.
My legislation, H.R. 229, would create a non-partisan commission to
look at how the administration's response to this disaster was shaped
by the artificially low death toll. It would also examine the adequacy
of the steps taken by the federal government to prepare for the
hurricanes, and what went wrong with the federal response in the weeks
after the storms made landfall.
Equally as important, the Commission would be tasked with examining
any potential disparities in the federal response to Puerto Rico
compared with 2017 Mainland disasters. As we have seen, the response in
Puerto Rico was slower and less effective than in places like Texas
after Hurricane Harvey. Compounding a lackluster federal response was a
series of botched FEMA contracts that delayed delivery of crucial
supplies such as tarps and meals.
Frustratingly, the Puerto Rican government continues to fight with
FEMA for adequate funding to repair or replace damaged hospitals,
schools, and infrastructure.
It is critical that we get answers to why this administration keeps
moving the goal posts on permanent work projects, while the communities
of Puerto Rico continue to suffer nearly 2 and a half years later.
Thousands of our fellow American citizens perished in this
catastrophe. We need an independent, nonpartisan panel to fully
investigate and bring to light all the facts. We also need
recommendations on ways to prevent such a humanitarian catastrophe from
happening again on American soil.
I'm confident that H.R. 229 will provide the forum and the
opportunity to get to the bottom of reasons for the abject failure of
the federal response to the 2017 natural disasters in Puerto Rico.
Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady for her testimony. I
visited Puerto Rico last year and saw what incredible
devastation there was, and intend to get the committee down
there again to see what little progress we have made. And I
look forward to working with her on that issue.
So thank you.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. We have 10 minutes 22 seconds to--well,
theoretically--a vote. And so I will recognize Representative
Takano.
For Joe and Elissa, we will reconvene after votes and hear
your testimony then.
So, Mark, go right away. The chairman of the Veterans'
Affairs Committee.
TESTIMONY OF HON. MARK TAKANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member
Graves, and members of this committee for the opportunity to
testify today.
This is a watershed moment for this Congress, as we
contemplate the clearest path forward to address the investment
deficit facing our Nation's infrastructure. Our highways,
airways, and waterways form the arteries that drive our Nation
and its economy forward, and it will be critical that any
infrastructure priorities to move out of this committee truly
reflect our values as a Nation.
And while most of the debate around infrastructure is
largely dominated by talks of funding, I am here to discuss an
even more important element in the debate: the human element.
This committee is about moving people, goods, and services
safely and efficiently across the country. But without a
vigorous and organized workforce we could do none of these
things. And that is why I am here today to share an experience
from my district that undermined our workforce, and the lessons
I have learned going forward.
As members of this committee may know, Amtrak used to
maintain a reservation call center in my congressional
district, in Riverside, California, before outsourcing those
jobs to a foreign-owned call center in Florida. In just a few
weeks' time, nearly 500 highly paid unionized jobs were traded
for low-paying contract work. It was a clear union-busting
maneuver that forced the attrition of hardworking employees
with good salaries and good benefits.
Hundreds of my constituents and their families had just 60
days' notice before deciding whether to uproot their lives and
accept another Amtrak job across the country in Philadelphia,
or accept a relatively meager severance package and keep their
families rooted in the community they grew up in and love.
These practices should have no place in our country, and
certainly not at Amtrak, an American corporation that is
majority owned by the Federal Government and receives billions
of tax dollars to subsidize their service.
That is why, as the committee develops its legislative
agenda, I am urging my colleagues to take greater steps to
protect American workers and mitigate Amtrak's ability to
further undermine our workforce and its national network of
passenger rail service. And we can achieve this by requiring
Amtrak to provide at least 6 months' notice to union
stakeholders, employees, and Members of Congress before making
any major staffing decisions; considering stronger anti-
outsourcing provisions in future surface transportation
reauthorizations; and closing loopholes that Amtrak has since
used to adhere to the letter, but not the spirit, of the law.
Now, I hope this committee will consider language that
works toward this end, not only out of respect for the families
impacted in Riverside, but also the families who may find
themselves facing a similar situation in other parts of the
country at the hands of Amtrak.
Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chair.
[Mr. Takano's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark Takano, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
This is a watershed moment for this Congress as we contemplate the
clearest path forward to address the investment deficit facing our
nation's infrastructure.
Our highways, airways, and waterways form the arteries that drive
our nation and its economy forward--and it will be critical that any
infrastructure priorities to move out of this committee truly reflect
our values as a nation.
While most of the debate around infrastructure is largely dominated
by talks of funding, I am here to discuss an even more important
element in the debate--the human element.
This committee is about moving people, goods, and services safely
and efficiently across the country. But without a vigorous and
organized workforce, we could do none of those things.
That is why I am here today to share an experience from my district
that undermined our workforce and the lessons I've learned going
forward.
As the members of this committee may know, Amtrak used to maintain
a reservation call center in my Congressional district in Riverside, CA
before outsourcing those jobs to a foreign-owned call center in
Florida.
In just a few weeks' time, nearly 500 highly-paid unionized jobs
were traded for low-paying contract work.
It was a clear union-busting maneuver that forced the attrition of
hard-working employees with good salaries and good benefits.
Hundreds of my constituents and their families had just 60 days'
notice before deciding whether to uproot their lives and accept another
Amtrak job across the country in Philadelphia--or accept a relatively
meager severance package and keep their families rooted in the
community they grew up in and love.
These practices should have no place in our country, and certainly
not at Amtrak--an American corporation that is majority owned by the
federal government and receives billions of tax dollars to subsidize
their service.
That is why as the committee develops its legislative agenda, I am
urging my colleagues to take greater steps to protect American workers
and mitigate Amtrak's ability to further undermine our workforce and
its national network of passenger rail service.
We can achieve this by:
Requiring Amtrak to provide at least 6 months' notice to
union stakeholders, employees, and Members of Congress before making
any major staffing decisions;
Considering stronger anti-outsourcing provisions in
future surface transportation reauthorizations;
And closing loopholes that Amtrak has since used to
adhere to the letter, but not the spirit, of the law.
I hope this committee will consider language that works toward this
end, not only out of respect for the families impacted in Riverside but
also the families who may find themselves facing a similar situation in
other parts of the country at the hands of Amtrak.
Thank you and I yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, I thank the gentleman for his strong
advocacy for the hardworking people in his district who lost
their jobs at Amtrak under disturbing circumstances. And I look
forward to working with him.
I do expect that we will, in all probability, include
Amtrak in our infrastructure package. That wasn't decided
yesterday, but I am hopeful, and that would give us an
opportunity to make some changes to address some of your
concerns. So thank you.
Mr. Takano. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your
consideration, I really do. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks. OK, the committee will stand in recess
until the votes are concluded.
[Recess.]
Mr. DeFazio. And in the order of arrival, we will first
hear from the Honorable Elissa Slotkin from Michigan. Five
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ELISSA SLOTKIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Ms. Slotkin. Thank you, sir. I appreciate the opportunity.
Thank you for having those of us who couldn't make it out of
the committee come and testify in front of you. And to the
ranking member, when he returns, thank you, sir.
Infrastructure, particularly when it comes to the State of
Michigan's roads, is one of our most critical and most
bipartisan issues in Michigan's Eighth Congressional District
and across our State. In Michigan and perhaps in many States,
we desperately need once-in-a-generation Federal investment in
our roads and water infrastructure to be able to accomplish the
hard work of repairing these systems to last.
In these times of deep political division and partisanship,
no matter where you stand politically, the disastrous state of
our roads in Michigan is something everyone can agree on.
Michigan drivers spend, on average, $539 per year to repair
their automobiles, due to the state of our roads. Thirty-eight
percent of our State's urban roads are in poor condition, and
roughly one-third of fatal traffic accidents are the result of
hazardous roadways, roadway features like potholes. I have got
901 bridges in my district; 115 are classified as structurally
deficient, so 1 out of 9.
But addressing our roads and bridges literally scratches
the surface of the infrastructure challenges we are facing in
Michigan. It is also the infrastructure that we can't see, our
water infrastructure, that really is the subject of my comments
today.
I live 15 minutes from Flint, Michigan, and I just want to
put on the record that I think Michigan is going to be the
first State in the country to have to grapple with the
existential question of whether clean water out of our taps is
a right or a privilege. And I believe it is a right. We have
contaminated systems; we have corroded pipes. It is directly
threatening the safety and security of our families.
We also, in addition to lead, have a PFAS contamination
problem. For those who don't know what PFAS is, everyone will
soon know what it is. In Michigan and in other industrial
Midwestern States, high levels of PFAS have been detected in
thousands of sites--in my district, 34 sites. It is a chemical
that is found in municipal drinking water serving more than 2
million people across my State, in 54 schools, including 5
schools in my district.
And last summer the Michigan Department of Health and Human
Services issued an emergency do-not-eat advisory for the fish
from the Huron River, a big river in my district. And then,
just before hunting season, announced that you couldn't eat the
venison that forage around the river.
To me, the issue of security of our water--we literally
need to start thinking of environmental security the way we
think of homeland security. It is about the safety and security
of our families, and the preservation of our way of life. And I
consider that--our water systems, in particular, a security
threat.
So luckily, investing in our infrastructure enjoys broad
support. Both parties know we have to do something about our
infrastructure.
I will urge everyone on the committee to please do more
than what we did last Congress, which was to explain how we are
going to pay for it. The people in my State are really tired of
the good words. They really want to understand, and are willing
to sacrifice in order to pay for infrastructure. But having
another bill that does not explain the clear payment, I
believe, means we have abrogated our responsibility as a
Congress.
Private investors will only commit real resources to build
or maintain projects where they expect to get investment. If we
lean too much on States or private investments, States like
mine just won't be able to adequately address the security
challenges from the infrastructure.
I would ask this committee, as well as our senior
leadership here in Washington, to consider Michigan as you
undergo your appropriations and your work moving forward. Our
residents in the Eighth Congressional District are counting on
you all, and I really appreciate the opportunity to speak.
[Ms. Slotkin's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Elissa Slotkin, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member for the opportunity to
share my transportation and infrastructure priorities.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, infrastructure, particularly when
it comes to the state of Michigan's roads, is one of the most
critical--and the most bipartisan--issues in Michigan's 8th district,
and across our state.
My home state of Michigan, perhaps more than most states,
desperately needs a once-in-a-generation federal investment in our
roads and water infrastructure to be able to accomplish the hard work
of repairing these systems to last.
In these times of political partisanship and division, no matter
where you stand politically, the disastrous state of our roads is
something everyone in Michigan can agree on.
Michigan drivers spend an average of $539 annually in
automobile repair costs.
38% of our state's urban roads and 32% of its rural roads
are in poor condition.
Of the 901 bridges in my district, 115, or 12.8%, are
classified as structurally deficient. We have seen in this country the
tragedies that can occur when bridges aren't properly built or
maintained. Repairing Michigan's bridges will cost an estimated $205.1
million.
What's more, roughly 1/3 of fatal traffic accidents are
the result of hazardous roadway design or features, like potholes.
But addressing our roads and bridges literally scratches the
surface of the infrastructure challenges facing our state.
It is also the infrastructure that we can't see: our water
infrastructure systems are contaminated and corroded, and directly
threatening the safety and security of our families.
Flint is a 20-minute drive from my district, and
communities in the 8th district have begun to test their water, but
don't have the resources to upgrade their systems in response.
Michigan is also confronting widespread PFAS
contamination in our water--chemicals that we know are linked to cancer
and other diseases.
In Michigan alone, high levels of PFAS have been detected
at 34 sites, including at Diamond Chrome Plating in my district in
Howell.
In addition, these chemicals have been found at some
level in the municipal drinking water serving more than 2 million
people around the state. PFAS has been detected in 54 Michigan schools,
including five schools in the 8th Congressional District.
Last summer, the Michigan Department of Health and Human
Services issued an emergency ``do not eat'' advisory regarding all fish
from the Huron River, from Milford in Oakland County to Base Line and
Portage Lakes at the Livingston and Washtenaw county border, after fish
from Kent Lake were discovered to have very high levels of PFOS.
Let me be clear: I believe that access to clean water out of your
tap is a right, not a privilege. And I believe it's an issue of
environmental security that we need to treat for what it is: a homeland
security issue.
And when Michigan families can't be confident that the water they
are giving their children to drink may make them sick or give them a
learning disability; when they can no longer fish in the rivers or hunt
in the areas they have hunted for years with their family--that is a
threat to families' security, and to our way of life in Michigan.
In other words, our infrastructure in Michigan has become a
security threat. So what do we do to fix it?
Luckily, we know that investing in our infrastructure enjoys broad
bipartisan support. Both parties have said the right things on
infrastructure--it's time to back that up with real federal dollars
that can help states like mine.
That means explaining to people how we're going to pay for that
investment. If we don't establish a clear ``pay-for,'' I believe we
will have abrogated our responsibility to solve this issue.
Private investors will only commit resources to build or maintain
projects where they expect to get their investment, plus some profits,
back. If we lean too much on the states or private investments, states
like mine just won't be able to adequately address the security
challenges that infrastructure poses.
I ask that this committee, as well as our senior leadership here in
Washington, consider Michigan as you undergo your appropriations and
your work on this issue moving forward.
8th district residents are counting on you to provide real federal
investment in our national infrastructure.
Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady for her testimony.
You will be happy to know that yesterday, in fact, Michigan
was raised specifically in regards to water infrastructure
needs. This committee has jurisdiction over wastewater, in an
odd way we do things around here. The Committee on Energy and
Commerce has drinking water. I think they kind of go together,
but we are trying to work together. But both were substantively
agreed to in the infrastructure discussion.
So now all I have to do is figure out how we pay for it,
which I know you didn't want to hear, but that is our next step
when we meet again with the President. And he wanted to meet
when his Secretary of Treasury could be there, who is over in
China, negotiating with the Chinese.
So anyway, thanks for your testimony. And my invisible
ranking member doesn't have any questions, and I have no
questions, so thank you.
Ms. Slotkin. Thank you, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Is Joe next? OK, the Honorable Joe Neguse
is next, from Colorado.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOE NEGUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
visible ranking member, as well, for the opportunity to have
Members testify in front of this committee today. We very much
appreciate it, and I know particularly my freshman colleagues
appreciate the opportunity to be able to visit with you, Mr.
Chair. And I want to thank you for your leadership. I very much
appreciate your willingness and ability to lead with respect to
potentially--an infrastructure package that would address the
crumbling roads and bridges and highways across our country.
As you know, Mr. Chair, I represent the great Second
Congressional District of the State of Colorado: Boulder, Fort
Collins, northern Colorado, and many mountain communities. And
my constituents are certainly looking to leaders in Washington
and representatives of this committee to prioritize much-needed
investments in our infrastructure.
At the heart of my district we are in need of investments
for the critical transportation corridors of Interstate 70,
U.S. 36, and Interstate 25 that stretch across our State.
Investment in our highway system would reduce hazardous
congestion and provide economic development through jobs, and
accessibility for our local businesses.
In our mountain communities, in particular in Summit and
Eagle Counties, which I am proud to represent, as well as Clear
Creek County and the cities of Idaho Springs and Breckenridge
and Frisco, we are in need of significant infrastructure
investment to meet the need of population growth and heavy
tourist traffic. And that includes, as well, investment in
rural housing, rural broadband, and, yes, transportation.
With respect to transportation infrastructure, improvements
to Floyd Hill westbound I-70 mountain corridor, it is one of
the most congested, from Floyd Hill to the Veterans Memorial
Tunnel. And investment by this Congress and this committee
would certainly go a long way to alleviating those challenges.
In addition, the I-25 northern corridor, it is the primary
north-south interstate highway into northern Colorado, 75,000
vehicles per day. And over the past 20 years there has been a
425-percent population increase in that area of our State. And,
of course, the infrastructure has not kept up with those needs.
As members of this committee might be aware, our region and our
State in Colorado has grown very rapidly, and our current
infrastructure is simply no longer able to meet the needs of
the population.
And so we want to ensure that our municipalities are
equipped with infrastructure that is sustainable and green, as
I know the chairman has often discussed in the past, and moves
our communities closer to our goals for addressing climate
change, as well. Many communities in my district have pledged
to go green, and are looking for opportunities to benefit the
region's rapid growth, while staying true to their
environmental principles and goals.
Finally, I want to encourage the committee--and I know--I
heard the comments made by several of my colleagues already on
this issue--to include education and school buildings when
considering a comprehensive infrastructure package.
Just last week, during the congressional recess, I had the
opportunity to visit a number of schools in my district in
Larimer County and Thompson School District, Loveland, Fort
Collins. And you know, there are a lot of building needs, areas
where the buildings are dilapidated and in need of funding, and
it is simply unacceptable that our country's students are
expected to learn in buildings that are, in many cases, not
simply just falling apart, but unsafe to inhabit.
And so I am proud to cosponsor Chairman Bobby Scott's
Rebuilding America's Schools Act, and I would strongly urge its
inclusion in the infrastructure package.
And with that, again, I appreciate, Mr. Chair, the
opportunity to testify today, and for your work and your
leadership on this issue.
[Mr. Neguse's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Neguse, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Colorado
Across the 2nd District of Colorado, my constituents are looking to
leaders in Washington and representatives of this Committee, to
prioritize much needed investments in our infrastructure.
At the heart of my district, we are in need of investments for the
critical transportation corridors of I-70, US-36 and I-25 that stretch
across our state. Investment in our highway system would reduce
hazardous congestion, and provide economic-development through jobs and
accessibility for our local businesses.
In our mountain communities, in Summit and Eagle Counties, we are
in need of significant infrastructure investment to meet the need of
population growth and heavy tourist traffic, this includes investment
in rural housing, rural broadband and transportation. These investments
would have wide-reaching benefits including providing businesses with
much needed revenue, workers the ability to access jobs across our
region and the housing they need.
Our region has grown rapidly, and our current infrastructure is no
longer able to meet the needs of the population. We want to ensure our
municipalities are equipped with infrastructure that is sustainable and
green, and moves our communities closer to our goals for addressing
climate change. Many of our cities have pledged to ``go green'' and are
looking for opportunities to benefit the region's rapid growth while
staying true to their environmental principles and goals.
Further, I encourage the committee to include education and school
buildings when considering a comprehensive infrastructure package. Just
last week, I visited schools in my district where buildings are
literally crumbling. It's simply unacceptable that our country's
students are expected to learn in buildings that are not only falling
apart, but in many cases unsafe to inhabit. I'm a proud cosponsor of
Chairman Bobby Scott's Rebuilding America's Schools Act and strongly
encourage its inclusion in an infrastructure package.
I implore the Committee to take into consideration the needs of my
district as they look to an infrastructure package. This is a
fundamental area that we need to be focusing on, and a chief priority
across my district and one I believe one that we can get done even with
a divided government.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, thanks for those kind words, Joe. We
will see if we get to an end point here on how we raise the
money and pay for these infrastructure, writ large. But I
appreciate your testimony, thank you.
Now--Buddy is next, right? Yes, OK, the Honorable Buddy
Carter, Georgia. Five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
hosting us today. I appreciate it very much, the opportunity to
testify in front of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee for Members' Day.
Mr. Chairman, like many of the Members here, I believe that
it is pertinent to raise infrastructure priorities that will
address many of the problems facing our Nation. For that
reason, I would like to submit the following testimony on
issues in your jurisdiction.
First of all, I would like to mention the importance of
updating the passenger facility charge, which is important for
many airports across the country. In my district alone, I have
a number of airports that have stressed how critical it is that
they are provided additional flexibility under the passenger
facility charge to make improvements.
Mr. Chairman, while the United States once led in aviation
and the structures to make it commercially viable, we are now
being left behind as those airports age. By addressing the caps
for the passenger facility charge, we can give airports in
nearly every congressional district the opportunity to
modernize and meet their constituents' needs.
One thing to remember is those charges are locally spent
and locally imposed.
Second, it would be beneficial to augment the Airport
Improvement Program for small, medium, and nonhub airports.
This program is essential in providing grants for the planning
and development of commercial airports. Smaller airports are
often an economic engine for communities that don't have access
to large commercial airports, and they provide an important
link. As we see more traffic moving to a hub-and-spoke model,
these smaller, nonhub airports are critical to ensuring that
people can continue to access these communities they serve.
Finally, infrastructure needs include airports, but they
also go much further. I am honored to represent two major
seaports, Savannah and Brunswick, which are growing at an
incredible speed. Much of that is due to great management,
local investment, and a continued working model of a public-
private partnership with the Federal Government. As we continue
to look towards the Nation's infrastructure needs, I believe it
is pertinent to look at these projects delivering a high
benefit-to-cost ratio, and to examine how those successes can
be utilized in the larger scheme of infrastructure funding.
I know this committee will work diligently under your
leadership, Mr. Chairman, to address the Nation's
infrastructure needs. And I thank you for the opportunity to
provide this testimony today.
[Mr. Carter's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Georgia
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you for the opportunity to
testify in front of the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee for
Members' Day. Mr. Chairman, like many of the members here, I believe
that it is pertinent to raise infrastructure priorities that will
address many of the problems facing our nation. For that reason, I
would like to submit the following testimony on issues in your
jurisdiction.
First, I'd like to mention the importance of updating the passenger
facility charge which is important for many airports across the
country. In my district alone, I have a number of airports that have
stressed how critical it is that they be provided additional
flexibility under the passenger facility charge to make improvements.
Mr. Chairman, while the United States once lead in aviation and the
structures to make it commercially viable, we are now being left behind
as those airports age. By addressing the caps for the passenger
facility charge, we can give airports in nearly every congressional
district the opportunity to modernize and meet their customers' needs.
One thing to remember is those charges are locally spent and locally
imposed.
Second, it would be beneficial to augment the Airport Improvement
Program for small, medium, and non-hub airports. This program is
essential in providing grants for the planning and development of
commercial airports. Smaller airports are often an economic engine for
communities that don't have access to large, commercial airports and
they provide an important link. As we see more traffic moving to a hub
and spoke model, these smaller and non-hub airports are critical to
ensuring that people can continue to access these communities they
serve.
Finally, infrastructure needs include airports, but they also go so
much further. I'm honored to represent two commercial ports, Savannah
and Brunswick, which are growing at an incredible speed. Much of that
is due to great management, local investment, and a continued working
model of a public-private partnership with the federal government. As
we continue to look towards the nation's infrastructure needs, I
believe it is pertinent to look at these projects delivering a high
benefit-to-cost ratio and to examine how those successes can be
utilized in the larger scheme of infrastructure funding.
I know this committee will work diligently to address the nation's
infrastructure needs and I thank you for the opportunity to provide
testimony today.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, thanks, Buddy. You will be happy to
hear, in reference to harbors, that when I told the President
we had collected $9 billion in taxes for harbor maintenance
that was sitting somewhere over in the Treasury, he pointed to
his staff and said, ``Fix that.'' So I think maybe we are going
to finally get that one done, and that will help with your
ports and other ports around the country.
Mr. Carter. Thank you. That is good news.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes.
Mr. Carter. And I appreciate your efforts.
Mr. DeFazio. And on the PFC I appreciate your support. You
know it is the most cost-effective way to deal with airport
needs for security and capacity. And I have got--the airports
this year have provided really good documentation showing how
much enplanement costs or interest costs would go up if they
don't have access to a PFC. And, you know, I think that we are
going to pursue that route, also. So I appreciate your support
in that.
Mr. Carter. Thank you very much.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Carter. Yes, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. OK. We will now--5 minutes for the
Honorable Dean Phillips.
TESTIMONY OF HON. DEAN PHILLIPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have the great
honor of representing Minnesota's Third Congressional District,
which includes the western Twin Cities metro area, and home to
the Mall of America, Paisley Park Studios, and historic Lake
Minnetonka.
Our community is a microcosm of our State and entire
region. We are suburban, exurban, and rural. We are wonderfully
diverse, highly educated, and home to some of the most
successful businesses in America, from Cargill to CH Robinson
to United Health Group. Districts like ours have the tools and
talent to solve the problems of the world, but we need the
infrastructure to do so.
In order for the United States to build a competitive 21st-
century economy, Congress needs to pass a 21st-century
infrastructure plan. This must be a top priority of the 116th
Congress, and would make a huge difference for our community in
Minnesota and our entire country.
Since taking office in January, my staff and I have visited
with officials from nearly all of the 36 cities and towns we
represent. And whether it is a city of 371 or 84,000, the
conversation quickly turns to infrastructure, from roads, to
bridges, to transit, and broadband, wastewater, and energy.
Coming from a State that sends far more of our hard-earned
dollars to Washington than we get back in Federal funding, we
are in dire need of investment in infrastructure. It is time
for the Federal Government to invest in Minnesota's future and,
in doing so, America's future.
That begins with two key Capital Investment Grant projects
in my district: the green line extension and the blue line
extension that are critical for expanding transit options for
the Twin Cities metro area. These projects will connect people
to jobs, reduce traffic congestion, and spark economic
development, which is why they have overwhelming support from
the businesses and communities of our region.
For that reason, I ask the committee to support full
funding for the Federal Transit Administration's Capital
Investment Grant program at the FAST Act-authorized level of
$2.3 billion. Full funding for this program is key to advancing
projects in the CIG pipeline, which includes the two projects I
just mentioned.
Also among the top concerns of my constituents is the
condition and safety of Minnesota's roads and bridges, as
evidenced by the I-35W Bridge collapse in 2007 that took a
number of lives. There are numerous highways in need of funding
to repair crumbling roads, add necessary lanes, and update
safety measures.
Perhaps the most urgent of those projects awaiting funding
is the Highway 12 corridor, commonly known as the corridor of
death, as it is one of the most dangerous highways in our
entire State. Just last month I was saddened when a young 21-
year-old man lost his life on Highway 12 when he lost control
of his car and crossed the center median. Unfortunately,
stories like this are far too common, unacceptable, and
preventable. Congress needs to stop being paralyzed by partisan
politics and work to fund an infrastructure bill.
The need for this legislation encompasses more than our
roads, bridges, and ground transportation. We also need to
expand reliable broadband to every community in America.
We need investments in water infrastructure to ensure clean
drinking water, and safe and reliable wastewater systems for
every community in America.
We need enhanced rail safety to ensure our first responders
can race to an incident without being stuck on the wrong side
of a train, and that our communities are safe.
We need airport infrastructure. The reasonable choice is to
do so through raising the passenger facility charge, which does
not impact the Federal budget, and allows airports to address
their needs. The status quo is simply not working.
And we need investments in our electrical grid energy
storage and transmission to ensure that the clean power of the
future can reach the communities and consumers who need it the
most.
In this year's State of the Union Address, President Trump
said he knew that the need for an infrastructure package was
real, and eager to work with the Congress, and we must hold him
to this. It is time to come together and take concrete action.
We need to modernize our infrastructure, find alternative
funding streams to pay for those improvements, and pass
legislation to send to the President's desk.
I am hosting a community conversation in my district about
infrastructure on May 30th, and would love to extend an
invitation to the chairman, ranking member, and members of the
committee to join us. The snow should have melted in Minnesota
by that time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield my time.
[Mr. Phillips' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dean Phillips, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Minnesota
Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of
the Committee for the invitation to speak with you all today.
I have the great honor of representing Minnesota's Third
Congressional District, which includes the western Twin Cities metro
area and is home to the Mall of America, Paisley Park and historic Lake
Minnetonka.
Our community is a microcosm of our state and region. We are
suburban, exurban and rural. We are wonderfully diverse, highly
educated and home to some of the most successful businesses in America,
from Cargill to CH Robinson to UnitedHealthGroup. Districts like ours
have the tools and talent to solve the problems of the world, but we
need the infrastructure to do so.
In order for the United States to build a competitive 21st century
economy, Congress needs to pass a 21st century infrastructure plan.
This must be a top priority of the 116th Congress. And it would make a
huge difference for our community in Minnesota.
Since taking office in January, my staff and I have visited with
officials from nearly all of the 36 cities and towns we represent. And
whether it's a city of 371 or 84,000, the conversation quickly turns to
infrastructure--from roads, bridges and transit to broadband,
wastewater and energy.
Coming from a state that sends far more of our hard-earned tax
dollars to Washington than we get back in federal funding, we are in
dire need of investment in infrastructure. It's time for the federal
government invest in Minnesota's future--and in doing so, America's
future.
That begins with two key Capital Invest Grant projects in my
district--the Green Line extension and the Blue Line extension--that
are critical for expanding transit options for the greater Twin Cities
metro area. These projects will connect people to jobs, reduce traffic
congestion and spark economic development--which is why they have
overwhelming support from the businesses and communities of our region.
For that reason, I ask the committee to support full funding for
the Federal Transit Administration's Capital Investment Grant Program
(CIG) at the FAST Act authorized level of $2.3 billion. Full funding
for this program is key to advancing projects in the CIG pipeline which
includes the two projects I just mentioned.
Also, among the top concerns of my constituents is the condition
and safety of Minnesota's roads and bridges. There are numerous
highways in need of funding to repair crumbling roads, add necessary
lanes, and update safety measures.
Perhaps the most urgent of those projects awaiting funding is the
Highway 12 corridor, commonly known as the corridor of death, as it is
one of the most dangerous highways in our state. Just last month, I was
deeply saddened when a young 21-year-old man lost his life on Highway
12 when he lost control of his car and crossed the center median.
Unfortunately, stories like this are far too common, unacceptable,
and preventable. Congress needs to stop being paralyzed by partisan
politics and work to fund an infrastructure bill.
The need for this legislation encompasses more than our roads,
bridges, and ground transportation.
We also need to expand reliable broadband to every community in
America.
We need investments in water infrastructure to ensure clean
drinking water and safe and reliable wastewater systems for every
community in America.
We need enhanced rail safety, to ensure our first responders can
race to an incident without being stuck on the wrong side of a train,
and that our communities are safe.
We need airport infrastructure. The reasonable choice is to do so
through PFCs, which doesn't impact the federal budget and allows
airports to address their needs. The status quo is just not working for
our airports.
And we need investments in our electrical grid, energy storage and
transmission, to ensure that the clean power of the future can reach
the communities and consumers who need it.
In this year's State of the Union address, President Trump said
that he knew the need for an infrastructure package and was eager to
work with the Congress. Congress must hold him to this.
It's time to come together and take concrete action. We need to
modernize our infrastructure, find alternative funding streams to pay
for these improvements, and pass legislation to send to the President's
desk.
I am hosting a community conversation in my district about
infrastructure on May 30th. I would like to extend an invitation to the
Chairman, Ranking Member and members of the committee to join us.
Thank you.
Mr. DeSaulnier [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Phillips. I
would just comment when I was in the California Legislature one
of the places we looked at was the Minnesota Department of
Transportation for performance standards. They and Washington
and Massachusetts were really doing some innovative things, in
spite of your challenges, as you mentioned in your comments. So
I think the committee would be very supportive of your efforts.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you sir.
Mr. DeSaulnier. I appreciate it.
Our next witness is the much-esteemed chairwoman of the
Financial Services Committee from the great State of
California, Ms. Waters.
TESTIMONY OF HON. MAXINE WATERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
distinguished members of the committee. I am very pleased to
have the opportunity to testify before you today about how
robust investment into affordable housing infrastructure should
be included in any infrastructure spending package. Congress
must recognize that our Nation's infrastructure extends beyond
making investments in our roads, bridges, ports, and airports.
It also includes our Nation's affordable housing.
Yesterday the Committee on Financial Services held a
hearing entitled, ``Housing in America: Assessing the
Infrastructure Needs of America's Housing Stock.'' We heard
from a variety of witnesses, including representatives from
real estate industry, a low-income housing advocacy group, and
the public housing authority association on the need to
preserve and build the Nation's affordable housing stock.
We are in the midst of a housing affordability crisis.
According to the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, there
is a shortage of more than 7.2 million rental housing units
that are affordable and available to the lowest income
families. In fact, no State in America has an adequate supply
of affordable housing for the lowest income renters.
For example, California has a deficit of over 1 million
affordable and available units. Wisconsin has a deficit of
nearly 140,000 units. Mississippi has a deficit of nearly
50,000 units. New York has a deficit of over 600,000 units.
Rising rents and gentrification are a part of this problem.
For example, in my district the city of Inglewood is
experiencing economic development, which, while it offers many
benefits for the community, has also resulted in higher rents
and led to displacement of residents. Affordable housing must
be a part of any solution, or long-time and often lower income
residents will lose their homes.
During yesterday's hearing the National Low-Income Housing
Coalition highlighted the importance of funding Federal
programs such as the National Housing Trust Fund, and how they
can serve as a tool for equitable development, and keep
neighborhoods affordable for extremely low-income individuals.
Our public housing system, which houses 2.6 million
Americans, is also in dire need of investment to repair
kitchens, elevators, baths, doors, windows, and roofs. In their
testimony, the National Association of Housing and
Redevelopment Officials noted that the public housing capital
fund and public housing operating fund have endured deep
funding cuts, forcing housing agencies to forgo critical
maintenance. Our public housing developments need energy-
efficient systems, repaired elevators, new sprinkler systems,
lead-based paint remediation, and other structural improvements
to improve residents' health and safety.
As a result of the chronic underfunding and disinvestment
in America's public housing infrastructure, there is a public
housing capital needs backlog of $70 billion, and around 10,000
units are lost each year.
Neglecting our housing infrastructure also hurts our
economy. Studies have found that the lack of affordable housing
hurts economic productivity and wages. At our hearing, the
National Association of Home Builders testified that building
100 affordable rental units generates $11.7 million in local
income, $2.2 million in taxes, and other revenues for local
governments, and 161 local jobs.
For all of these reasons I have put forth a discussion
draft that would make the investments we need in our housing
infrastructure and create jobs across the country. The bill
contains $1 billion to fully fund the backlog of capital needs
for the section 515 and 514 rural housing stock; $5 billion to
support mitigation efforts that can protect communities from
future disasters and reduced post-disaster Federal spending; $5
billion for the Housing Trust Fund to support the creation of
hundreds of thousands of new units of housing that would be
affordable to the lowest income households; $100 million to
help low-income elderly households in rural areas age in place;
and $1 billion for the Native American Housing Block Grant
program to address substandard housing conditions on Tribal
lands; $10 billion for a CDBG set-aside to incentivize States
and cities to eliminate impact fees, and responsibly streamline
the process for development of affordable housing; and $70
billion to fully address the public housing capital backlog.
Any infrastructure package should also consider ways to
incentivize developers to reduce the energy cost of affordable
housing, and to create housing that accommodates generations of
families living under one roof.
We must make big, bold investments in affordable housing.
Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer agree. This week they sent a
letter to the President calling for a broad, comprehensive
infrastructure package that includes investment in housing.
And thank you so much for your consideration of this
important proposal.
[Ms. Waters' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Maxine Waters, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and distinguished Members
of the Committee, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to testify
before you today about how robust investment into affordable housing
infrastructure should be included in any infrastructure spending
package.
Congress must recognize that our nation's infrastructure extends
beyond making investments in our roads, bridges, ports, and airports.
It also includes our nation's affordable housing. Yesterday, the
Committee on Financial Services held a hearing entitled ``Housing in
America: Assessing the Infrastructure Needs of America's Housing
Stock''. We heard from a variety of witnesses including representatives
from the real estate industry, a low-income housing advocacy group, and
the public housing authority association on the need to preserve and
build the nation's affordable housing stock.
We are in the midst of a housing affordability crisis. According to
the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, there is a shortage of more
than 7.2 million rental housing units that are affordable and available
to the lowest income families. In fact, no state in America has an
adequate supply of affordable housing for the lowest income renters.
For example, California has a deficit of over a million affordable and
available units. Wisconsin has a deficit of nearly 140,000 units.
Mississippi has a deficit of nearly 50,000 units. New York has a
deficit of over 600,000 units.
Rising rents and gentrification are part of this problem. For
example, in my district, the City of Inglewood is experiencing economic
development which, while it offers many benefits for the community, has
also resulted in higher rents and led to displacement of residents.
Affordable housing must be part of any solution, or long-time--and
often lower income--residents will lose their homes. During yesterday's
hearing, the National Low-Income Housing Coalition highlighted the
importance of funding federal programs such as the National Housing
Trust Fund and how they can serve as tool for equitable development and
keep neighborhoods affordable for extremely low-income individuals.
Our public housing system, which houses 2.6 million Americans, is
also in dire need of investment to repair kitchens, elevators, baths,
doors, windows, and roofs. In their testimony, the National Association
of Housing and Redevelopment Officials noted that the Public Housing
Capital Fund and Public Housing Operating Fund have endured deep
funding cuts, forcing housing agencies to forgo critical maintenance.
Our public housing developments need energy efficient systems, repaired
elevators, new sprinkler systems, lead-based paint remediation, and
other structural improvements to improve resident's health and safety.
As a result of the chronic underfunding and disinvestment in America's
public housing infrastructure, there is a public housing capital needs
backlog of $70 billion and around 10,000 units are lost each year.
Neglecting our housing infrastructure also hurts our economy.
Studies have found that the lack of affordable housing hurts economic
productivity and wages. At our hearing, the National Association of
Homebuilders testified that building 100 affordable rental apartments
generates $11.7 million in local income, $2.2 million in taxes and
other revenues for local governments, and 161 local jobs.
For all of these reasons, I have put forth a discussion draft that
would make the investments we need in our housing infrastructure and
create jobs across the country.
The bill contains:
$1 billion to fully fund the backlog of capital needs for
the Section 515 and 514 rural housing stock;
$5 billion to support mitigation efforts that can protect
communities from future disasters and reduce post-disaster federal
spending;
$5 billion for the Housing Trust Fund to support the
creation of hundreds of thousands of new units of housing that would be
affordable to the lowest income households;
$100 million to help low income elderly households in
rural areas age in place; and,
$1 billion for the Native American Housing Block Grant
Program to address substandard housing conditions on tribal lands;
$10 billion for a CDBG set-aside to incentivize states
and cities to eliminate impact fees and responsibly streamline the
process for development of affordable housing; and
$70 billion to fully address the public housing capital
backlog.
Any infrastructure package should also consider ways to incentivize
developers to reduce the energy costs of affordable housing and to
create housing that accommodates generations of families living under
one roof. We must make big, bold, investments in affordable housing.
Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer agree. This week, they sent a letter
to the President, calling for a broad, comprehensive infrastructure
package that includes investment in housing.
Thank you for your consideration of this important proposal.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Ms. Waters. I just--since we
have three Californians in the room right now, the importance
of the hearing yesterday. I tried to watch as much of it as I
could.
You and I have had a conversation. I have talked to Chair
Cleaver about this, about the intersection between
transportation and housing. In the State of California, we did
a lot of this, and we found in the bay area, in Sacramento, in
Los Angeles, as you know, we have some of the longest exurban
trips, Inland Empire people who are mismatched, people who are
making good money, can't afford the housing. I have two sons
who live in Culver City. So this is one of the really important
things, I think, for your committee and our committee to work
together on.
I will shamelessly mention a bill I have. In transportation
funding--we fund the transportation research schools to help us
come up with innovative ideas, as transportation changes. We
have a similar bill that would help with HUD doing the same
things. It is not very much money, but we have learned a lot
from the transportation schools about how to adapt.
But this intersection between jobs, housing, homelessness,
and transportation, as you know, is very crucial. In the bay
area we have got some studies that show the number-one thing--
and it is worse in Los Angeles--that drops people into
homelessness is a car repair of $400 or more, where they have
to make the choice between paying for that to get to work, so--
and, for the rest of the country, it is important because 65
percent of the GDP comes from these urban areas that are
struggling with this.
So I appreciate the work you are doing, and look forward--I
know Chairman DeFazio and I have had extended discussions, and
I know other Members have, as well as--the importance of this,
and I know you have. So, personally, I look forward to working,
and I know the chairman does, with your committee and your
jurisdictional responsibilities, to cooperate.
Ms. Waters. Thank you so very much. You are absolutely
correct. And I look forward to the work that we could do, as
you say, understanding the intersection between transportation
and housing.
Mr. DeSaulnier. And lastly, that you are so good at it, in
particular, is inequality that contributes.
The next speaker is another revered Californian, Ms.
Matsui.
TESTIMONY OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have never been
called ``revered,'' but that is--I will take that. But thank
you for the opportunity to come before the committee and lay
out my key infrastructure priorities.
As cochair of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment
Coalition, which we all SEEC, I want to emphasize how much of
an opportunity we have here to meaningfully act on climate
change through sustainable infrastructure policies. A broad,
forward-thinking infrastructure plan, such as the one SEEC put
forward last Congress, should focus on sustainability, healthy
communities, and environmental protection.
One area where we can really engage with communities,
businesses, and advocates to find innovative solutions is
electrification of both our transportation sector and
buildings. My local utility in Sacramento, the Sacramento
Municipal Utility District--or SMUD, as we call it--has already
done some excellent work to set ambitious goals to electrify
the building and transportation sectors. These forward-thinking
utilities can serve as a model at the Federal level. To this
end, additional Federal tax incentives and grants would help
communities deploy strategies that will lead to a faster
transition to cleaner and more efficient buildings.
Additionally, we must support cleaner transportation
policies, such as my Clean and Efficient Cars Act, to enforce
robust fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards. We
can also include further incentives for broad deployment
electric vehicles, or EV, charging technology, and for the
purchase of zero emission and EVs and upgrades to heavy-duty
vehicles.
For example, I introduced the Diesel Emissions Reduction
Act to reauthorize a popular program that provides grants to
upgrade old diesel engines with cleaner technologies, which
leads to significant emissions reductions. It is grants and
other incentives like these that will help us move away from
older, heavy-use equipment that is inefficient and harmful to
air quality.
Unfortunately, Sacramento ranks the fifth worst city in the
country for air pollution. The health and well-being of my
constituents depends on policy solutions that would transition
our transportation to clean-vehicle technologies. My State of
California and the city of Sacramento have undertaken great
efforts to address some of these issues, but a sweeping
infrastructure plan should incorporate comprehensive Federal
standards and incentives for businesses and consumers alike
that support American ingenuity and leadership in this space.
And, as you are aware, the Capital Investment Grant program
is the Federal Transit Agency's primary mechanism for providing
capital funding to transit projects. A continued commitment to
protecting funds provided by this program will assist in
Sacramento's downtown revitalization efforts. Funds that have
been made available for these projects stand to be the catalyst
for growth in Sacramento, and promise to reduce congestion,
while facilitating connection to the region's business center.
Finally, we must also take this opportunity to address the
risks our communities are already facing, including the
catastrophic flooding and extreme weather events that are
exacerbated by climate change. Sacramento is one of the most
flood-prone cities in the United States. We have already
undertaken great efforts to build out sound infrastructure to
protect our residents from flood events. And while I have
worked tirelessly to secure funding for these projects, more
work and funding is needed to have a complete system in place.
I would also like to work with the committee to address
remaining flood protection needs in Sacramento, West
Sacramento, and the surrounding region as you begin to
formulate a WRDA 2020.
Furthermore, I am looking to how to address longer term
flood-control needs for the greater Sacramento region through a
comprehensive, multipurpose, multiagency study. I believe this
comprehensive watershed-based approach is the way of the
future, and offers a means to look at a broader spectrum of
water resource needs.
Many of the challenges that communities across America
face, including those of my home district, can be addressed in
a comprehensive infrastructure package. Supporting policies to
complement the innovative work in so many communities across
the country is a top priority of mine, and I hope it would be
one in any upcoming infrastructure proposal.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I
look forward to working with the committee on these issues in
the months ahead. Thank you very much.
[Ms. Matsui's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Thank you . . . Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to come before
the Committee and lay out key infrastructure priorities that are of
high importance to my district and to this country.
As Co-Chair of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment
Coalition (SEEC), I want to emphasize how much of an opportunity we
have here to meaningfully act on climate change through sound and
sustainable infrastructure policies.
A broad, forward-thinking infrastructure plan, such as the one SEEC
put forward last Congress, should focus on sustainability, healthy
communities, and environmental protection . . . which will ultimately
best serve our districts and constituents.
One area where we could really engage with communities, businesses,
and advocates to find innovative solutions is electrification, of both
our transportation sector and buildings.
My local utility in Sacramento, the Sacramento Municipal Utility
District, or SMUD, has already done some excellent work in this space .
. . these forward-thinking utilities can serve as a model for policies
we can advocate for at the federal level.
SMUD has set ambitious goals to electrify the building and
transportation sectors in the Sacramento area.
To this end, improving building codes and supplementing their work
with additional federal tax incentives and grants would help
communities across the country deploy these strategies, ultimately
leading to a faster transition to cleaner and more efficient buildings.
Additionally, our infrastructure package should advocate for
cleaner transportation policies, such as my Clean and Efficient Cars
Act, to enforce robust fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions
standards.
We can also include further incentives for broad deployment of both
electric vehicle--EV--charging technology and for the purchase of zero-
emission and electric vehicles.
But it isn't just passenger and light-duty vehicles where we can
make an impact within our transportation sector. Further initiatives
within the heavy-duty vehicle space are needed.
For example, I introduced the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act this
Congress to reauthorize a popular program that provides grants to help
upgrade old diesel engines with cleaner technologies . . . which leads
to significant emissions reductions in vehicle fleets across the U.S.
It's grants and other incentives like these that will help us move
away from older heavy-duty equipment that is inefficient and harmful to
air quality.
Unfortunately, Sacramento ranks the 5th worst city in the country
for air pollution . . . and it is the most vulnerable communities
within the city that are hit the hardest--low-income and minority
families that live near major traffic corridors.
It is absolutely imperative to the health and well-being of my
constituents that we continue to advocate for policy solutions that
will transition our transportation sector from fossil fuels to clean
vehicle technologies.
The state and City of Sacramento have undertaken great efforts to
address some of these issues, but a sweeping infrastructure plan could
incorporate policies such as comprehensive federal standards and
incentives for businesses and consumers alike would complement these
efforts and demonstrate American ingenuity and leadership in this
space.
And as you are aware, the Capital Investment Grant Program is the
Federal Transit Agency's primary mechanism for providing capital
funding to transit projects.
These projects are planned, implemented, and operated by local
government, which often would not be able to fund the projects without
a federal investment.
A continued commitment to protecting funds provided by this program
will assist in Sacramento's downtown revitalization efforts.
Sacramento's urban core has been undergoing significant development
and redevelopment. Funds that have been made available for these
projects stands to be a catalyst for growth in Sacramento and promises
reduce congestion while facilitating connections to the region's
business center.
Finally, while it is important to think proactively on how we can
prevent further warming of our planet, we must also take this
opportunity to address the risks our communities are already facing,
including the catastrophic flooding and extreme weather events that are
exacerbated by climate change.
Sacramento is particularly vulnerable to these problems, being one
of the most flood-prone cities in the U.S. We have already undertaken
great efforts to build out sound infrastructure to protect our
residents from flood events.
While I have worked tirelessly to secure funding to make these
projects possible, more work and funding is needed to have a complete
system in place.
Over the past couple of years, hurricanes and intense storms have
devastated cities and communities throughout the U.S., from Texas to
North Carolina to the Midwest. A broad infrastructure package is a
chance to strengthen existing safeguards and build out additional
protections to prevent loss of life, injuries, and millions of dollars
of damage to property.
Many of the challenges that communities across America face,
including those in my home district, could be addressed in a
comprehensive infrastructure package.
For years, we have allowed our nation's critical infrastructure to
fall behind and have consistently failed to invest in a plan that
embraces proactive policies that advance the best interests of the
American people.
While there are many opportunities within an infrastructure package
to support our constituents, electrification is truly an area that cuts
across a myriad of sectors, cities, and states.
Supporting policies to complement the innovative work of so many
communities across the country is a top priority of mine, and I hope it
will be one in any upcominginfrastructure proposal.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and I look
forward to working with the Committee on these issues in the months
ahead.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Ms. Matsui. And I think the
committee--I speak for the committee--that we are keenly aware
of your leadership on renewables and alternative fuel vehicles,
and the intersection with the importance of infrastructure in
the committee.
And having spent some of the best years of my youth in your
district, in Sacramento, it is a wonderful city that benefits
from your leadership, but also the amenities, and the cultural
amenities, the economic amenities, including the State
government. But it is a beautiful place that is struggling with
its own growth issues and we need to provide that
infrastructure so it will continue to be the amazing place that
it is.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, and I look forward to working with
the committee. Thank you.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you.
If no other Members are here, then I will ask unanimous
consent that the record of today's hearing remain open and
until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any
questions that may be submitted to them in writing, and
unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for
any additional comments and information submitted by Members or
witnesses to be included in the record of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I would like to thank our witnesses again for their
testimony today. And if no other Members have anything to add,
the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:02 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jodey C. Arrington, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Thank you for providing members the opportunity to share our
thoughts and priorities for the 116th Congress. As you continue to
develop your proposal to rebuild our nation's infrastructure, I'd like
to take this Member's Day hearing as an opportunity to highlight the
issues of importance to the constituents of TX-19 and rural America.
To provide prosperity to every part of the country, any future
infrastructure initiative must recognize the essential role America's
small towns and rural communities play in feeding, fueling, and
clothing America's cities and urban areas. With jurisdiction over
issues like highways, airports, water resources, and other critical
infrastructure areas, this committee has a unique opportunity to set
the stage for the future of rural America. Access and upgrades to
adequate rural infrastructure not only promote the wellbeing and
quality of life for people living in rural communities, but also
ensures the safe and efficient transportation of food, fuel and fiber
throughout the country.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Taskforce
Report, investing in rural transportation infrastructure is needed to
carry more ``Made in America'' products to markets at home and abroad,
thereby boosting our country's global competitiveness. In my district
and rural districts stretching from the Mexican to the Canadian
borders, the Ports-to-Plains Alliance has been doing their part to
plant the seeds for a major north-south reliever corridor. If
implemented, this corridor would stretch across nine states in a swath
of 500 miles where there are currently no major north-south interstate
highways (I-25 and I-35 being the closest).
The Ports-to-Plains region includes states which lead our nation's
energy economy with seven of the top ten states in oil production and
eight of the top ten states in wind energy generation in the country,
producing over $44 billion in agriculture goods, or 22 percent of total
U.S. agriculture production. The Ports-to-Plains corridor generates
over $166 billion annually in trade with Canada and Mexico, accounting
for almost 20 percent of all U.S.-North American trade. Simply put,
Middle America provides the food, fuel, and fiber that strengthens and
protects our nation.
The nation's rural transportation network provides the first and
last link in the supply chain from farm to market, while also driving
tourism, enabling the production of energy, and supporting military
movements. As you continue to develop your proposal to rebuild our
nation's infrastructure, I urge you to consider products as well as
people in the equitable balance between urban and rural America.
I look forward to working with you this Congress on these critical
issues. Please reach out to my office if we can be of any help.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Burchett, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Tennessee
Members of the committee. Thank you for holding this hearing. The
district I represent is home to the Tennessee Valley Authority
headquarters. The TVA was established by the enactment of the Tennessee
Valley Authority Act, which was signed into law by President Franklin
Roosevelt in 1933.
The TVA helped bring economic prosperity throughout the Tennessee
Valley during the Great Depression. Many of my constituents' ancestors
benefitted from the economic development initiatives the TVA still
provides.
Though the TVA has a strong historical presence in my region, there
is still room for improvement in their daily operations.
TVA is a government-created entity that, at times, resembles a
private corporation. For example, the CEO of the TVA makes more than $8
million per year. I can't think of another government created entity
that pays that well.
Decisions by its board are held in secret and are not open to the
rate payers of the Valley. There have been numerous plant closings in
the Valley; most recently Bull Run and Paradise power plants in
Tennessee and Kentucky, respectively. Coal ash residue, which contains
toxic chemicals like arsenic, has been found in bodies of water from
east to west Tennessee. I fear the cost of the cleanup has been passed
on to the rate payers of the Valley.
A primary goal of the TVA is to keep rates low, which is why
Congress has yet to sell off any of the Authority's transmission assets
to private companies. There's a problem when a public authority is not
transparent to the people who are affected the most by its actions.
That is why I have introduced the Tennessee Valley Authority
Transparency Act. This bill would open all board and subcommittee
meetings to the public.
I have always been an advocate of government transparency, and this
bill is a common-sense measure to make sure rate payers throughout the
Tennessee Valley are best served. Many people throughout this nation do
not trust government. In my view, government is already too big and
burdensome. Let's start now to regain the American people's trust. The
Tennessee Valley is a good place to start. Thank you and I look forward
to any questions the committee may have.
Principles To Include in an Infrastructure Proposal, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Cheri Bustos, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois
There is bipartisan consensus that the United States needs
significant investment in our infrastructure to build a strong
foundation for a successful economy. This is particularly true in the
Heartland, where road, water infrastructure, broadband and community
facility investments are needed. These investments would support local
businesses, help get goods to market and improve quality of life all
while creating good-paying jobs. We can make these investments in a
fiscally responsible manner.
To realize the benefits of an infrastructure proposal in all parts
of the country, any proposal should:
1) Direct federal investment to areas with demonstrated need
2) Strengthen programs that target support to rural areas and
small towns, including technical assistance
3) Maintain and expand policies that support America's
manufacturers and workers, including Buy American, Davis-Bacon
prevailing wage requirements and the use of project labor agreements
Locks and Dams
More than 600 million tons of goods are shipped along our inland
waterway system annually. But most locks and dams have far exceeded
their designed lifespan, and the failure of a single lock could shut
down traffic up and down the river system. By increasing federal
support to the existing public-private partnership--the Inland Waterway
Trust Fund--we can:
Prioritize funding the $8.75 billion backlog of inland
waterway projects
Fund the Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program
and upgrade to 1200, locks on the Upper Mississippi River
Water
Clean drinking water and safe wastewater disposal are requirements
for communities of any size, but maintaining the necessary
infrastructure can be a significant financial burden for small
communities. More than 94% of drinking water utilities in the United
States supply communities smaller than 10,000 people, and the EPA
projects $655 billion in water infrastructure needs nationwide over the
next 20 years. The need to eliminate lead exposure through drinking
water is only adding to the demand for federal resources. We can help
address the needs of rural communities and small towns if we:
Fund the USDA Water and Waste Water program's $2.5
billion project backlog
Reauthorize and boost funding for the EPA's Clean Water
and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds
Broadband
Access to high-speed internet is a necessity for today's students,
families, farmers and businesses. But 23 million rural Americans don't
have access to internet of adequate speed. Right now, the United States
is ranked 16th in the world in terms of broadband access. To help
change that, the federal government can:
Provide sufficient direct support for programs to close
the ``last mile'' gap and deploy sustainable broadband that will meet
rural consumers' needs now and in the future
Encourage local officials to ``dig once'' to upgrade
broadband as they build and repair roads
Healthcare
Hospitals are the economic drivers of many rural communities,
employing an average of 195 people with a payroll of $8.4 million. Yet
nearly 700 rural hospitals are at risk of closure, putting 236,000 jobs
on the line. Hospital closures have devastating impacts on rural
economies and feed health disparities between rural and urban
residents. Not only do rural residents tend to be older and sicker,
they often have to travel further for care and only one-tenth of the
nation's physicians practice in rural areas. To support rural economies
and improve access to care, we must:
Improve access to capital for health facilities'
construction and modernization, such as purchasing new equipment to
promote telehealth
Test new ways to deliver care that will allow hospitals
in small towns and rural areas to keep their doors open without
compromising patients' access to critical health services
Make investments to recruit physicians and other health
professionals to practice in rural areas
Fund the backlog of construction and maintenance at
Department of Veterans Affairs medical facilities
Roads and Bridges
More than seven of every ten miles of public roads and bridges
across America are in rural areas, and travel on these roads is
increasing. Everyday use and freight traffic has resulted in growing
maintenance needs. In 2015, more than 35% of major rural roads across
the country were rated in poor or mediocre condition. To boost local
economies and promote public safety, the federal government should:
Provide a sustainable funding source for the Highway
Trust Fund
Provide robust funding for the BUILD grant program
Continue safety investments for improvements to High Risk
Rural Roads
Airports
America's non-hub airports help spur investment in our local
economies, but these airports have critical maintenance and
infrastructure needs. The Federal Aviation Administration estimates
that over the next five years, $32.5 billion in airport projects will
be eligible for federal Airport Improvement Program funds nationwide,
while far less funding will be available. To address these needs, the
federal government should:
Support funding for airport infrastructure projects,
including the Airport Improvement Program
Maintain the Essential Air Service program that preserves
access to smaller airports in rural areas
Rail
An efficient rail network is important for the transport of goods
through rural areas and the success of passenger rail. However, federal
investments in passenger rail infrastructure have lagged behind even
while ridership on long-distance passenger rail routes that serve the
Heartland is growing. These routes stop in many rural communities
without commercial airports or other intercity transportation. To
invest in rural rail, we must:
Fund passenger rail investments, including long-distance
service, the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement
Program and Restoration and Enhancement Grants
Continue incentives for maintaining freight rail
infrastructure
Extend the short line ``45G'' rehabilitation tax credit
Energy
Connecting rural customers to stable and cost-effective
electricity--and harnessing the energy that's generated in rural
areas--remains a challenge today. Nationwide, our economy loses more
than $25 billion annually due to avoidable power failures. To bring our
energy generation and electricity into the 21st Century, an
infrastructure plan should:
Support Rural Utility Service loan programs that help
accelerate grid modernization and protection
Maintain incentives for energy sources like wind, solar
and biofuels that promote our energy independence and strengthen rural
economies
Education and Research
Beyond their role in education, rural schools are also major
employers and community centers. But while four in every ten American
students attend rural schools, those schools receive less than a
quarter of federal education funding. Nationwide, America's schools
need repairs, renovations and modernizations totaling nearly $200
million. In addition, the Association of Public and Land-grant
Universities identified $8.4 billion in deferred maintenance for
buildings and infrastructure used for agricultural research. To help
rural America compete, we should:
Invest in improvements to rural K-12 facilities
Invest in agricultural research capacity, including those
that fund facilities improvements
Housing and Community Facilities
Housing affordability is a growing concern for rural communities.
Since 2000, housing costs in rural areas have increased five percent
and one in four rural households pays more than 30% of their income on
housing. Further, compared with the typical urban unit, housing in non-
metro areas is two times more likely to have incomplete plumbing,
inadequate wastewater treatment or unsafe drinking water. In addition,
too many communities struggle to adequately support first responders'
infrastructure needs to keep their communities safe. To bolster rural
communities, we must:
Support federal programs geared towards addressing
housing and homelessness in rural areas, such as the USDA Section 502
Single Family Housing Direct and Guaranteed Loan Programs and Multi-
Family Housing Programs
Bolster programs at USDA, EPA and HUD to address public
health concerns posed by unsafe conditions in housing
Increase support for USDA's Community Facility grant
programs to help support first responders and other community
facilities
Prepared Statement of Hon. Matt Cartwright, a Representative in
Congress from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
Committee:
As you know, the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 served to deregulate the
trucking industry by reducing the barriers of entry into the industry.
Congress believed that federal regulators alone could not adequately
oversee trucking activities and sought to cut red tape to increase
efficiency, produce jobs, and deliver lower prices for consumers.
Congress also sought to engage private insurance companies to ensure
that the trucking industry operates in a safe manner. One of the
significant provisions in the 1980 Act is that motor vehicle carriers
must maintain a liability insurance policy of no less than $750,000 for
trucks carrying typical freight and no less than $5 million for trucks
carrying hazardous materials.
Congress intended for the minimum liability insurance coverage to
provide incentives to the trucking industry to operate safely.
Insurance companies and their underwriting process would ``regulate''
the trucking industry--so the thinking went--by requiring safety
standards for the equipment and drivers as part of the insurance
application and coverage process. The theory was that insurance
companies would not insure trucking companies that do not adequately
follow safety practices. The intended result was that the minimum
liability insurance requirement would ``weed out'' the trucking
companies that operated in unsafe manners--ones that caused or
threatened property damage, injury, or death.
Congress also provided a key provision in the 1980 Motor Carrier
Act that permits the Secretary of Transportation to raise the minimum
level of liability insurance to achieve the intended purpose of the
Act. As you all also know, things have changed significantly in the
nearly 40 years since passage of the Motor Carrier Act. The number of
authorized motor carriers has risen enormously, doubling in just the
first decade after the Act. The number of large trucks registered with
the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) was reported to be over 11
million in an estimate calculated just over two years ago. The
permitted tractor trailer length has risen as well--first to 48 feet
and now to 53 feet. Truck weight also increased significantly over this
same time. The costs of lost wages and medical expenses resulting from
truck crashes have simultaneously increased with the rates of general
inflation and medical inflation, respectively. According to all DOT
reports, our highways are more congested, drivers are more distracted,
and truck fatalities are increasing. The conditions of freight-bearing
trucks on our highways that existed in 1980 are now long gone.
During this same time period, however, the various Secretaries of
Transportation did not increase the minimum liability insurance
coverage requirement at all. Not one increase of any amount. If one
were to adjust the $750,000 amount for inflation, it would more than
quadruple the minimum coverage level. Adjustment factoring in the even
greater average inflation in medical expenses, which victims of
accidents face, would require a minimum liability insurance coverage
level of over five million in today's dollars.
The result of nearly four decades of inaction is that victims of
truck accidents that cause injury or death are often unable to recover
needed, adequate, just compensation from motor carriers who only carry
the minimum requirement of $750,000.
Consequences of the gap between today's actual costs of accidents
and the original minimum liability level amount reach beyond the
trucking industry itself. Courts are frequently forced to deal with
interpleader actions by the insurance industry, a practice that permits
insurance companies to sue all parties involved in a truck accident and
then submit only the minimum level policy amount to the court, leaving
the parties to fight or interplead among themselves as to who should
receive what level of compensation from the policy. Appellate case law
has been that the minimum liability policies cover only a per accident
liability limit and not a per victim limit. In cases where there are
multiple victims with claims exceeding $750,000, the victims then have
no chance of recovering adequate compensation from the policy if the
motor carrier has only the minimum coverage.
There are also known instances where trucking companies with
minimal assets engage in the practice of establishing ``reincarnation''
companies after significant accidents involving serious injury or
death. Reincarnation occurs when trucking companies close or enter
bankruptcy to avoid payment beyond the insurance policy limit. Many of
these companies later rename themselves and simply move assets to a
different company or another person to avoid judgment exposure. The
result is that parties who do receive judgments exceeding the minimum
liability level frequently have no recourse because they are unable to
recover damages from companies that either do not exist anymore or have
no assets.
The costs associated with accident damages caused by the trucking
industry are therefore not borne by the trucking industry but instead
are exported to the victims themselves, other entities not responsible
for the accident, or the public at large.
On the latter point, uncompensated and undercompensated truck
accident victims who are forced to self-pay for their injuries often
turn to Medicaid, Social Security disability compensation, and other
government programs to provide for their expenses, lost wages, or basic
necessities after a personal bankruptcy at some level occurs. In
effect, then, taxpayers subsidize the trucking industry by covering
many of the full costs of accidents involving underinsured trucks.
It is important to note that not all trucking and insurance
companies are responsible for this problem of underinsured motor
carriers. Many larger and better-funded trucking companies obtain
higher liability insurance policy limits to protect their relatively
greater assets from exposure to a lawsuit. Large-truck-company crash
victims are, therefore, better able to recover damages to pay their
medical bills. Many insurance companies also maintain self-imposed
minimum policy limits which further ensure that crash victims receive
compensation.
The Trucking Alliance, a coalition of freight and logistics
companies that advocates for safety reforms in the motor carrier
industry, seems to understand the issues facing the industry and takes
a responsible position with respect to liability insurance. The
Alliance advocates that ``Motor carriers should be sufficiently self-
insured or, if fully insured, maintain liability insurance that fully
compensates the medical expenses of large truck crash victims, as
Congress intended in 1980 when it passed this requirement.'' The
Trucking Alliance supports an official increase in the minimum
insurance requirement for operating on U.S. highways in order to
maintain the public's trust and to cover medical costs faced by truck
crash victims.
In support of their position, the Alliance voluntarily tracked
8,692 accident settlements involving member companies between 2005 and
2011. It reported that 42% of the trucking companies' monetary exposure
from these settlements would have exceeded their insurance coverage if
all of the companies in the study had maintained only the minimum
$750,000 insurance requirement.
For a number of compelling reasons, therefore, I urge the Committee
to finally pass legislation to raise the required insurance minimum for
motor carriers. The best policy result would be to tie the minimum
coverage requirement to inflation or, more accurately, medical
inflation, since the compensation is used to pay medical expenses. Such
a new law would protect the American public as well as trucking
companies themselves by ensuring that insurance coverage is available
to cover the total costs of their accidents.
Congress never intended the 1980 Motor Carrier Act to leave
accident victims in dire financial straits. Advocacy groups such as the
Truck Safety Coalition, industry members such as the Trucking Alliance,
and even the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration all understand
this and agree that action is needed to protect motorists. The
Committee should move to correct the unintended and unfair situation
that currently exists on our nation's highways.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ed Case, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Hawaii
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves and members of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with the Committee
on issues of importance to my constituents and Hawai'i.
While your committee focuses on the implementation of the 2018
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act, I would like
to advocate for the FAA to have the authority to regulate commercial
tour helicopters for reasons other than safety only.
Communities throughout the nation, and particularly in my home
state of Hawai'i, are dealing with the intrusion from noise and visual
impacts, as well as safety risks and other negative consequences of
excessive helicopter and small aircraft commercial tour operations.
Around Hawai'i national parks alone, 16,520 commercial air tours were
reported over the Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park and 4,839 were
reported over the Haleakala National Park in 2017. That averages out to
dozens of flights a day flying directly over communities in Hawai'i.
Tragically, on Monday, April 29, 2019, a tour helicopter crashed
onto a residential street in Kailua, O'ahu. The pilot and two
passengers were killed and we were very lucky that no one else was hurt
as it crashed in the middle of a densely populated suburban area. This
was the second time in six months that the same company had a tour
helicopter crash land on O'ahu. It is time we reevaluate the FAA's role
in regulating this industry.
These tours impact our national, state and county parks and natural
resources; cemeteries and memorial sites; military installations;
harbors and other government infrastructure; visitor industry
locations; commercial and industrial areas; nearshore waters and
recreational areas; and throughout our residential neighborhoods.
As I understand from discussions with the FAA and my own review of
existing laws and regulations, these air tour operations are virtually
unregulated at the federal level. The FAA does not consider noise
emission, time and place of operation, and altitude. The only real
federal interest or authority at present is strictly operational safety
and national airspace efficiency. With the recent crash and deaths in
Hawai'i, we must look into the way safety is being regulated. And as
the federal government largely claims exclusive jurisdiction over
airspace, state and local governments are not authorized to legislate
or regulate any mitigating restrictions.
This current situation is not acceptable. Commercial air tour
operators are not or should not be entitled to exact widespread and
virtually unlimited disruption and risk as a result of their
operations. There has been no material effort by operators to mitigate
disruption and risk on a voluntary basis, and none can be reasonably
expected. My commitment is therefore to pursue legislative and/or
regulatory solutions, and I would appreciate you working with me and
others in doing so.
Additionally, I would like to ask the committee to work with me and
other interested members to request the FAA and the National Park
Service to take the necessary steps to implement the decades-old
National Parks Air Tour Management Act and promulgate air tour
management plans for our national parks. As a member of the Natural
Resources Committee, I have asked the National Park Service to commit
to getting these done and would like to work with you on bringing the
FAA to the table as well.
Finally, I want to briefly highlight and ask for your continued
support for federal mass transit assistance generally and to Hawai'i
specifically for environment and traffic concerns. In 2018, Honolulu
area drivers spent about 92 hours per year in traffic congestion, among
the very worst in our country. There is a direct negative effect along
a whole range of metrics, from economy to efficiency to health, family
and quality of life. Additionally, the impact on all those drivers
sitting in traffic producing carbon emissions could be lessened if we
have more effective mass transit options in Honolulu and around the
country. As Honolulu works to expand its mass transition alternatives,
my state needs your continued support.
Thank you, please let me know if you have questions, and do not
hesitate to contact me or my office to further discuss these topics.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Florida
Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves,
Thank you for the opportunity to highlight important transportation
priorities that will improve the lives of my neighbors in Tampa,
Hillsborough County, Florida. Significant investments in transportation
and infrastructure are vital to the economic well-being of my neighbors
and small businesses in Tampa and directly tied to the ability to lift
wages and boost higher-paying jobs. In addition to the infrastructure
priorities in my district, I have included a few recommendations as
Chair of the U.S. House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. I am
grateful to Chairman DeFazio for his focus on reducing carbon pollution
and implementing clean and green transportation improvements. I urge
the Committee to be bold and strategic in crafting a modern and
thoughtful transportation package that tackles the climate crisis.
Hillsborough County, which includes Tampa, has a $9 billion backlog
of transportation needs and is projected to grow by nearly 600,000
people by 2040. In November 2018, county voters approved a one-cent
surtax to improve transportation. The ``All For Transportation''
revenue will provide important matching funds to draw down federal
monies for mobility projects. I urge the Committee to support
communities, such as mine, that are investing in efficient
transportation systems and modern infrastructure. Here are some
specific priorities:
1. The overriding priority for my growing community is to improve
mobility and reduce congestion through a multi-modal strategy,
particularly through expanded transit. The Hillsborough Area Regional
Transit Authority (HART) covers an area of approximately 1,000 square
miles with a fleet of only 200 buses. With the passage of the one-cent
surtax, HART is poised to expand to fixed guideway transit (a plan that
has been studied for decades), substantially expand bus service, extend
the popular Tampa Streetcar and move the Cross Bay Ferry from a pilot
project to consistent transit service. We need a robust partnership
with the Congress and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to move
these projects from the planning stages to implementation.
2. While my community is poised to improve transit, we need a
committed federal partner to do so. Therefore, I urge the Committee to
oppose President Trump's proposed cut of over $1 billion from Capital
Investment Grants which fund major rail and transit projects. While the
Congress rejected President Trump's 2018 budget that sought to
dramatically cut new transit projects and eliminate grants, the
administration has impeded such projects through unnecessary
bureaucratic hurdles. According to Transportation for America, since
2017, the administration awarded just two full-funding grant agreements
for new, multi-year transit projects even though Congress directed the
U.S. Department of Transportation to distribute approximately $3.8
billion for expanded transit systems. More awards were made only after
pressure from the media, public outrage and congressional oversight.
Nevertheless, the Trump administration has yet to fulfill its promises
to advance investments in transportation and infrastructure.
Communities like mine have a high expectation and need for a timely and
clear process for federal matching dollars.
3. Tampa International Airport (TIA) also is growing by leaps and
bounds, while maintaining its high-quality and customer-friendly
experience as one of America's best airports. Behind the scenes,
however, I am very concerned with the poor state of the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic control tower. The tower was
built in 1972 and has had serious issues with asbestos, poor plumbing,
structural deficiencies, fire protection systems, roof leaks, cracked
windows, and more. It needs to be replaced. In addition to the
crumbling tower, TIA and other airports can only maintain their high
quality if they have the resources to do so. Last Congress, I
introduced an amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill to increase the
modest passenger facility fee and cap airline baggage fees. Airline
baggage fees and the uncertainty they generate among the traveling
public are out of control. For more than a decade, airlines have
dramatically hiked the cost of baggage fees--forcing consumers to pay
higher fees while U.S. airlines have profited to the tune of billions
of dollars--$4 billion in baggage fees alone in 2016. Baggage fees are
not subject to the same federal tax as airfares that help fund the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund and support the FAA. Instead, the costs
go directly to airlines' profits. I encourage the Committee to rein in
exorbitant baggage fees and make travel more affordable for everyone,
while helping to keep our airports modern and up-to-date.
4. Safety enhancements for bicycles and pedestrians are a high
priority for the Tampa Bay area. My community unfortunately ranks high
in the number of pedestrian and bicyclist deaths. We need expertise and
resources to redesign streets and expand trails to make it safer and
more convenient for people to walk and bike. In addition, with an
increasing population of transportation disadvantaged neighbors, we
must expand paratransit services. More sidewalks and trails increase
safety and support all users with a multi-modal transportation options,
including persons with disabilities, the elderly and economically
disadvantaged.
5. The Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development
(BUILD) initiative (formerly known as TIGER grants) is vitally
important to my community as it provides flexible funding for creative
transportation projects. For example, I helped secure a grant for
expansion of Tampa's Riverwalk that has helped create a major
redevelopment and more walkable downtown Tampa and, another grant for
the Tampa-Hillsborough Expressway Authority downtown greenway that
provides a shaded pedestrian travel way.
6. Port Tampa Bay is Florida's largest port and serves West and
Central Florida and the Southeastern United States. Ship repair and
bulk cargo jobs are invaluable to us. Rail connections to the port move
freight efficiently and will be in need of expansion in the future as
the port grows with access for ships transiting the Panama Canal and
Caribbean transshipment facilities. It is critically important the
Committee continues to authorize the MARAD Port Infrastructure
Development initiatives which ensure resources are available to make
port landside and waterside improvements. Recently Port Tampa Bay
completed its Big Bend dredging project ahead of schedule and under
budget; however, the port needs additional resources to ensure the
dredged materials are disposed in a thoughtful and sustainable fashion.
I encourage the Committee to explore ways to support sustainable
practices for dredge disposal.
7. More than 47,000 bridges across the United States are
structurally deficient according to a new report released this year
from the American Road and Transportation Builders Association. Bridge
repair and replacements must be addressed. In the Tampa area,
increasingly severe storms are washing out our bridges, coastal
highways and stormwater drainage systems. Federal funds are necessary
to tackle the problem. Plus, with more than 1,000 miles of shoreline
and 39 percent of the population of the greater Tampa area living in
flood zones, a new Climate Vulnerability Assessment will further guide
transportation planning and aid in building a more resilient community.
As Chair of the Select Committee of the Climate Crisis, I urge the
Committee to enact legislation that dramatically reduces carbon
emissions from sources throughout the transportation sector and assists
communities across the country that are facing the increasing
challenges due to climate change. Every congressional district has
unique needs, but the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is
uniquely situated to develop overarching national infrastructure
policies that reduce carbon pollution and ensure greater resiliency.
While I list a few recommendations below, the Select Committee intends
to make many more extensive proposals in the months ahead:
1. America should lead the world in decarbonizing the
transportation sector now. We have improved the efficiency of vehicles,
but must go much farther in boosting electric cars and buses and
expanding transportation options that help achieve a 100% clean energy
economy as soon as possible. Doing so has tremendous upsides for
improved public health, air quality and the competitive edge for
American industries in the years to come.
2. Your committee holds the keys for more resilient transit, air,
port, water, and wastewater infrastructure--and it is time to be bold
and use every scientific tool we have to protect communities across
America. To protect people and taxpayers' dollars, federal agencies
should ensure that construction projects they are funding be built to
higher safety standards if located in flood-prone areas. President
Trump rescinded Executive Order 13690 that directed agencies to address
flooding risks. Despite promises to replace the previous executive
order, the administration has not taken action to put in place guidance
for new construction. Infrastructure legislation is an opportunity to
write this commonsense measure into law.
3. Investment to protect clean water also is critical to
responding to the climate crisis. We should ensure that improvements to
water infrastructure, like those undertaken by the Army Corps of
Engineers, incorporate the latest climate science and are built to deal
with the impacts of a rapidly warming world. Including a permanent
green reserve as part of revolving fund capitalization grants and
providing grants to increase the resilience of wastewater facilities
are ways to improve the long-term resilience of critical infrastructure
for communities.
4. Finally, environmental review and permitting processes are
crucial to ensure that climate, environmental and community impacts are
considered before finalizing federal decisions. Infrastructure
legislation should protect the ability for the public to have a voice
in government actions through the National Environmental Protection Act
(NEPA) and other environmental laws. We can ensure public participation
and advance projects that decarbonize the transportation sector and
expand renewable and clean energy.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my priorities. I look
forward to a bold and forward-thinking transportation and
infrastructure package that rebuilds America in a clean, green and
sustainable way. If you have any questions or comments, please do not
hesitate to contact me or my chief of staff.
Prepared Statement of Hon. David N. Cicilline, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Rhode Island
Dear Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves:
As you know, my home state of Rhode Island was recently ranked
among the lowest in the nation for our infrastructure needs, according
to U.S. News and World Report.\1\ The American Society of Civil
Engineers estimates that 24.9% of Rhode Island's bridges are
structurally deficient. These challenges present an urgent
responsibility to repair and rebuild our roads, bridges, ports, and
transit systems in order to create jobs, invest in local economies, and
enhance the safety of our citizens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you continue to develop legislation to address our
transportation and infrastructure needs, it is my hope that you will
consider including the following priorities in any future proposals to
rebuild our nation's crumbling infrastructure. I thank you for your
continued advocacy on these issues and appreciate your consideration.
IMAGINE Act and Innovative Materials
As you know, studies from the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) and National Academies have concluded that the employment of
innovative materials in transportation infrastructure has proven to be
cost effective and provide long lasting durability compared to other
conventional materials. For example, the National Academies' recent
report, ``Performance of Bridges That Received Funding Under the
Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Program,'' found that usage
of these materials in highway projects reduce construction costs and
overall project time, due to simpler installation procedures.
The bipartisan Innovative Materials for America's Growth and
Infrastructure Newly Expanded (IMAGINE) Act would encourage the
development and employment of materials such as high-performance
asphalt mixtures and concrete formulations, geosynthetic materials,
advanced polymers, reinforced polymer composites, advanced alloys and
metals, and aggregate materials. This bill would also create a task
force to examine standards and methods used to assess the federal
government's approval of materials for infrastructure projects, promote
research into new materials and building technologies, and increase
federal investment in vital bridge projects that utilize innovative
materials.
Wastewater Infrastructure
As you know, the Clean Water Act requires water and sewage
treatment plants to maintain federally mandated standards to keep our
water supply safe and sustainable. About 76% of the population is
served by sewage treatment plants, but 4.1 million of those people are
served by facilities providing less than secondary treatment, which is
a basic requirement by federal law. Often, the financial burden to meet
these requirements falls on state and local governments. This can leave
communities experiencing financial distress with outdated
infrastructure and facing down huge costs to bring them in line with
requirements. This affects all of us, as aging wastewater management
systems discharge billions of gallons of untreated sewage into U.S.
surface waters each year.
Federal assistance has not kept pace with the needs of wastewater
treatment systems, even though authorities agree that funding needs
remain very high. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that
the country will need to invest $271 billion over the next 20 years to
replace existing systems and build new ones to meet demand. It is
critical that we ensure wastewater improvement projects are
sufficiently funded and are prioritized to reflect the needs of the
community.
I urge the committee to establish a new grant program directed
specifically to address the needs of wastewater infrastructure in
financially distressed municipalities to prevent untreated sewage from
contaminating U.S. surface waters.
Update and Fund the National Scenic Byways Program
The National Scenic Byways Program was created with bipartisan
support by Congress in 1991 to recognize historic, scenic and
culturally important roads around the country by creating an official
designation as a ``National Scenic Byway,'' an honor which helps bring
economic development and tourism from around the world, focusing on
rural and suburban communities and expanding upon the benefits of the
infrastructure program.
I support both updating and funding the program in any
reauthorization process. While 150 National Scenic Byways have been
designated, the program has not been funded since 2012, stifling their
ability to realize the full potential as drivers of economic
development and job creation.
Fund the Program. I support funding the program at prior levels
adjusted for inflation which would be $50 million annually for the life
of a reauthorization bill to allow the 1,000 existing state scenic
byways, and states seeking to attain a designation, to compete for the
funds. In 2012, the last year grants were awarded, 125 byways in 44
states were awarded grants to complete projects ranging from installing
new interpretative and directional signs to the building of visitors
centers and rest areas. Scenic byways are stewarded by local
stakeholder groups who volunteer countless hours in support of their
byways, and these grants are often combined with local public and
private investment to improve the byway experience, increasing the draw
to visitors and creating a large return on investment. U.S. DOT should
also reopen the nomination process for new scenic byways. A recent
survey showed that 44 state scenic byways in 24 states are prepared to
seek national designation as soon as the program is reopened. In the
meantime, the largely rural communities along these byways are missing
out on the economic development opportunities provided by a road's
designation as a National Scenic Byway.
Update the Program to Include the Quality Assistance Program. To
ensure the success of the program, I support the creation of a Quality
Assistance Program with designated funding of $3 million per year to
support the upkeep of the Byways themselves. FHWA can contract the
oversight of this program to nonprofit entities to monitor the byways
and ensure the designees continue to meet the criteria and basis for
the Secretary's original designation; conduct research to advance the
understanding of scenic byways' economic benefits; and provide
customized technical assistance including mapping, fact sheets and
training to improve a scenic byway's performance.
Gateway Communities Economic Development: Amend the FLAP Program
I support amending the criteria for the Federal Land Access Program
(FLAP) to add opportunities for gateway communities to promote local
character through efforts such as the creation of interpretive panels,
contextual wayfinding markers, landscaping, access-related enhancement
and cooperative mitigation of visual blight. Additionally, it expresses
a preference, but not a requirement, for the use of native plants and
designs that minimize runoff and heat generation.
The Protecting Public Trees Act within Reauthorization
Decisions regarding state land, including publicly-owned trees,
shrubs and greenery should be decisions made by the state for
substantive reasons, not solely for purposes of privately-owned
billboard visibility. Maintaining roadside trees provides economic
benefits to protect against flooding and pollution benefits by limiting
runoff, absorbing auto emissions and shielding nearby homes from the
impacts of traffic. The Protecting Public Trees Act will guard publicly
owned trees from unnecessary destruction, maiming, or alteration solely
for the purpose of billboard visibility and allows state DOT's to
preserve their rights to cut trees in any other scenarios.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gilbert Ray Cisneros, Jr., a Representative
in Congress from the State of California
Intro
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, thank you for allowing me
this opportunity to provide input on infrastructure priorities on
behalf of the residents of California's 39th Congressional District.
For the benefit of my district and communities nationwide, I urge you
to work together in a bipartisan fashion to provide increased funding
for transportation projects while supporting sustainable energy and
environmental policies to address climate change.
Roads & Transit
The condition of California's roads is among the worst in the
nation, ranking 49th according to the latest US News & World Report
Ranking. And our transit systems, which are needed to reduce congestion
on our highways and improve air quality, received a C minus rating by
American Society of Civil Engineers' most recent report card. Federal
funding is necessary to fill the gaps and allow our state to address
infrastructure backlogs. And sustained funding levels is not sufficient
to address these severe backlogs. Rather, I urge you to put together an
infrastructure package that authorizes higher funding levels above what
is needed to account for inflation.
For example, I urge you to increase the authorized funding
available for the INFRA discretionary grant program. Stakeholders in my
district have been working to advance the 57/60 Confluence Chokepoint
Relief Project along State Routes 57 and 60 for over a decade to
improve freight mobility, relieve congestion, and enhance passenger
safety in our region. This year, I led a bipartisan letter in support
of the community's second application for an INFRA grant to cover just
six percent of the projects' total funding after their application was
rejected last year. I have met with local officials who highlighted
that in the year that has lapsed since their grant application was
denied, the total cost of the project has increased due to the delayed
start date and recent changes in trade policies. Clearly, this program
fulfills a nationwide need and current funding levels are not enough to
support even the smallest of federal matching requests from state and
local officials in my district.
Further, I encourage you to authorize and make permanent the
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) pilot program. The City of Placentia
in my district is proceeding with site planning and has secured local
and state funding for a new MetroLink station. Federal funds through
the TOD program would allow for strategic planning to support economic
development plans. Making this successful program permanent would
reassure communities like Placentia that federal support will remain
available for development planning.
Climate Change
I believe a successful infrastructure package should not only
address transportation and transit infrastructure backlogs and support
jobs nationwide but will also enhance infrastructure resilience and
prioritize investments that result in a reduction of climate pollution.
Like many states, California has been directly impacted by the
devastating natural disasters exacerbated by climate change. For my
region, climate change drives up temperatures and increases wildfire
risks. Integrating sustainability and resiliency policies into your
infrastructure package now will help mitigate temperatures increases,
limiting the length and damage of wildfire seasons and ensuring
communities are prepared for the growing risks of wildfires.
For instance, I urge you to authorize higher funding levels for the
Low or No Emission Vehicle Program under the Federal Transit
Administration. California has set a statewide goal for public transit
agencies to gradually transition to 100 percent zero-emission bus
fleets by 2040. This requirement is expected to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by 19 million metric tons, the equivalent of taking 4 million
cars off the road. Transit entities across my district are working hard
to meet this goal, but federal support is needed to ensure full and
timely implementation. The so-called ``Low-No'' bus program will help
transit systems in my district transition their fleets to the lowest
polluting and most energy efficient vehicles.
Conclusion
Thank you again for your time and consideration. I know you have a
tough job ahead of you and I hope you will keep these stories in mind
as you craft a bold infrastructure package for the benefit of
communities nationwide.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Emanuel Cleaver, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Missouri
Good Morning and thank you, Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member
Graves, for holding this hearing and giving Members the opportunity to
participate in this process and share our priorities with the
committee. As I'm sure you are aware, our nation's infrastructure is in
dire need of upgrades. According to the 2017 report from the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), American infrastructure received a
D+ grade, the same grade we received from the ASCE's report in 2013.
Essentially, this means that the United States is barely treading water
when it comes to meeting our infrastructure needs. I don't know about
you, but if one of my four children had received even one D on their
report card, let alone two in a row, we'd be having a serious sit-
down--a sit down much less cordial than the one we're currently having
today.
For a nation as wealthy as ours--a nation that claims to have the
best economy in the world--I find it perplexing that we have even
reached this point. Congress should take it personally and be
embarrassed that we have allowed the state of our national
infrastructure to degrade to the point where the World Economic Forum's
Basic Requirement Index ranks the U.S. outside of the top 10 developed
nations. The U.S. should not be ranked outside the top10 of any index,
yet here we are, consistently coming up short when it comes to national
infrastructure needs.
And make no mistake, our shortsightedness when it comes to
investing in our nation's infrastructure is undoubtedly going to cost
American taxpayers in the long term. Currently, the poor state of our
infrastructure is costing our citizens roughly $200 billion a year.
That's $200 billion just to maintain a D+ rating. Though the price of
new roads, or bridges, or levees may be costly, the status quo is
simply unsustainable.
The cure to all our nation's infrastructure woes is to simply
invest in our nation's infrastructure. I know, crazy right? If you want
something to improve, you simply need to invest time and resources into
it. According to a recent study by the Business Roundtable, for every
dollar spent restoring our infrastructure, it produces nearly four
dollars in economic benefits. Now, who wouldn't take four times their
return on investment? It would be foolish not to. So, what's stopping
us from reestablishing America as a global leader with world-class
infrastructure that also brings back significant return on investment?
Much like a shot of cough syrup, an infrastructure bill may be a
tough political pill to swallow, but the benefits will make our economy
feel much better down the line. If we do not find a way a way to treat
our nation's degrading infrastructure, we will see more roads
crumbling, bridges failing, and cities struggling to meet budgetary
needs. Let me relay some of the symptoms my congressional district is
facing.
In Missouri, the ASCE gave us an infrastructure grade of C-.
Slightly better than the national average, but still nothing to write
home about.
As I'm sure you're aware, I know Ranking Member Graves is very
aware, Missouri was one of the Midwestern states hit hard by recent
storms and the severe flooding that came with. Over 168,000 acres of
land was flooded when the Missouri River overtopped and broke through
levees. In response, the Governor has requested a federal disaster
declaration for the affected counties. I have personally toured the
devastation in my district, seeing firsthand the impact of our
deficient levee infrastructure. If we are to mitigate damage from
future floods, which we will see more of thanks to climate change as
well as the disaster funding required to repair that damage, more
attention and funding is needed.
When it comes to Missouri's roads and bridges, we aren't faring
much better. Missouri has the 7th most bridges and miles of road in the
nation, yet we maintain them with the 4th lowest gasoline tax. It's no
wonder that 12.5% of bridges in Missouri are structurally deficient,
almost 4 points higher than the national average. And these
deficiencies have a real-world negative economic impact on the
constituents I represent. On average, Missouri residents spend $604
annually on vehicle repairs and operating costs, roughly $75 more than
the national average.
The Buck O'Neil bridge, spanning the Missouri River in Kansas City,
was declared deficient in 2017. With a lot of coordination, the State
agreed to a $200 million replacement of the bridge. The City and
regional partners pledged to cover half the cost and MODOT earmarked
$51 million. The project also received a $25 million BUILD grant. This
bridge sees 44,000 vehicles pass each day, and yet is still about $60
million short of the total needed to complete the replacement over the
next several years.
Federal funding, such as the BUILD grants (formerly TIGER Grants),
are extremely important to help cities and states implement large
infrastructure projects. Additionally, more attention should be focused
on rural areas, which do not always have the capacity to compete for
competitive federal grants. Though they do not have the hefty price
tags of urban capital projects, rural infrastructure projects are
crucial to the rural economy and livelihood of small towns.
The last major sector of infrastructure that I believe Congress
must address is our stormwater and drinking water infrastructure. In
2012, Missouri and the EPA estimated that the state needs $9.6 billion
to address the needs of our water infrastructure over the next 30
years. Kansas City, the largest city in Missouri, is currently under a
consent decree to spend $2.5 billion to separate stormwater and
wastewater systems over 25 years. The city is doing everything it can
to meet the targets set by the federal government, but continues to run
into challenges, mostly due to lack of help from the federal
government. Because of this, the city utility has been forced to raise
water rates to over $100 per household, which is unaffordable for most
city residents. Thankfully, the city is renegotiating with the EPA on
the structure of the consent decree, but federal funding would have
saved my constituents from paying exorbitant water rates for the last
several years.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today about the
infrastructure needs of Missouri's Fifth Congressional District.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in
Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia
Thank you to Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves for hosting
a Member Day to hear from Members on their transportation and
infrastructure priorities.
One of the top transportation priorities for the National Capital
Region and my district in northern Virginia is the safety and
reliability of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
(WMATA) Metrorail system. WMATA is a $40 billion asset to the National
Capital Region and is essential to the operation of the federal
government, with federal employees representing approximately 40
percent of Metrorail's peak period customers. More than one-third of
all Metrorail stations are located on federal property, serving federal
facilities. Unlike other transportation networks in the nation, the
WMATA system serves a unique vital national security role for the
federal government, providing transportation for thousands of federal
employees traveling to and from the Pentagon, Department of Homeland
Security facilities, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
headquarters. On multiple occasions, the system has demonstrated it is
vital during times of crisis, including evacuation for weather events
and national emergencies. For all these reasons, Congress has
consistently appropriated dedicated federal funding for WMATA,
recognizing the special responsibility the federal government must help
``America's Subway'' fulfill these functions safely and reliably.
These appropriations have been made pursuant to the Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA, PL 110-432), which
established a successful federal-state partnership under which the
federal government provides $150 million in capital funding for WMATA
each year. The three WMATA jurisdictions--Virginia, Maryland, and
Washington, D.C.--collectively match this federal investment with an
additional $150 million. Without continued federal participation this
successful funding partnership would unravel, leaving a massive
shortfall in WMATA's budget.
That is why I have introduced, along with members of the DC-area
delegation, the Metro Accountability and Investment Act (MAIA).
MAIA would reauthorize PRIIA funding of $150 million in annual
capital funding for ten years. This funding would remain subject to a
$150 million match by the jurisdictions. In addition to the capital
funding, the federal government would provide a new, additional $50
million contribution to WMATA's operating costs--$10 million of which
would be provided to the WMATA Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
The federal government is represented on the WMATA Board of Directors
and its representatives help make operating decisions for the system.
However, the federal government contributes nothing to WMATA's $2
billion annual operating budget. The jurisdictions, on the other hand,
contribute a combined $1.2 billion in local operating subsidies with
the balance of the budget coming from fares. The Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) contributes to operating budgets for some transit
agencies through FTA's 5307, 5310, and 5311 programs. Given WMATA's
myriad federal contingencies, it is past time for the federal
government to have skin in the game on the system's operating costs.
This $200 million in annual capital and operating funding, would be
conditional upon certain reforms that strengthen the WMATA OIG. WMATA
would be required the provide the OIG with independent budget,
procurement and hiring authorities, make independent legal advice
available to the OIG, and improve transparency for OIG corrective
actions. The OIG is a source of accountability for the system. The OIG
has brought to light serious problems with WMATA's track inspection
program and has issued reports that have led to the prosecution of
fraud. The OIG in any organization must be pure as the driven snow, and
the reforms outlined in MAIA help ensure that the work of the OIG is
above reproach and beyond the reach of the transit system the OIG is
tasked with overseeing.
MAIA would also authorize a second tranche of dedicated federal
capital funding--$100 million per year for 20 years. This new
contribution would represent a long-term commitment to the safety and
reliability of Metro. It would also be contingent upon two sets of
conditions. First, the system would have to make progress towards
certain metrics on safety, reliability, and operating cost efficiency.
These metrics would be established through a collaboration between the
Department of Transportation and the jurisdictions. WMATA is not
without its challenges, and this funding would help incentivize the
kind of reforms and performance we expect from this vital transit
system. Second, the funding would be contingent upon the jurisdictions
establishing and sustaining a dedicated funding source--something every
other major transit system in America uses to meet capital funding
needs. As the chairman of the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments I convened a blue-ribbon panel on WMATA funding, and that
panel recommended that the jurisdictions establish a dedicated funding
source in order to meet the capital investment needs of the system. The
jurisdictions took this important step last year, and in FY2020 the
funding source is expected to produce $384 million in capital funding
for WMATA. That number is expected to climb to $692 million by FY2025.
With the jurisdictions stepping up their contributions to capital costs
by as much as an additional $200 million per jurisdiction per year, we
should expect the federal government to take commensurate steps
contingent upon WMATA improving system performance.
We cannot afford a death spiral of disinvestment and declining
service for the transit system that gets our federal workforce to work
each day. This bill uses a carrot and stick approach to both invest in
this essential transit system as well hold the system accountable to
providing safer, more reliable service. I want to thank the Committee
for its consideration of this legislation and the federal
responsibility to our national capital transit system.
Prepared Statement of Hon. TJ Cox, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California
Thank you, Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves, for giving
members the opportunity to share their priorities as the Committee
begins to tackle infrastructure legislation.
I appreciate the chance to highlight the needs of and major
challenges facing the Central Valley, in particular, the dire need to
increase investments in California's water infrastructure.
Many of you may know that California's Central Valley, the source
of over half of our nation's fruits and vegetables, is stressed by a
lack of water supply reliability. Valley communities depend on the dams
and canals of the federal Central Valley Project not only to deliver
water for irrigation, but also as a source of drinking water for small
and rural communities. It is also essential for managing floods and
preserving fish and wildlife habitats across iconic working landscapes.
The Friant-Kern Canal, which runs 152 miles from Millerton Lake to
the Kern river, provides critical conveyance of drinking and irrigation
water supply for rural communities on the east side of the San Joaquin
Valley. The canal relies entirely on gravity to deliver water to
communities and over 1 million acres of farmland.
Because of subsidence, the Friant-Kern canal has lost roughly 60%
of its carrying capacity, as the canal has literally sunk into the
ground creating pinch points upstream of some of the largest users of
water, causing severe economic impacts.
The Delta-Mendota Canal provides agricultural, refuge, and drinking
water supplies to communities and farmers throughout California,
including 1.2 million acres of irrigated agriculture in the San Joaquin
Valley, approximately 2 million people in Silicon Valley, and over
200,000 acres of managed habitat of critical importance to the to the
Pacific Flyway and various endangered species. This canal carries water
from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 116.5 miles, delivering water to
the federal San Luis Reservoir along the way, and eventually connecting
with the San Joaquin River near Mendota, California.
Funding to repair and upgrade these vital arteries in the Central
Valley will improve surface water deliveries and increase the
efficiency and utility of current water supply.
In absence of reliable water supply, farmers and residents depend
on groundwater, which has led to land subsidence from overdraft of the
groundwater aquifers. Through groundwater recharge initiatives, Valley
communities are working diligently to counteract subsidence and reduce
over pumping that has damaged conveyance infrastructure managed by the
State of California and federal Bureau of Reclamation.
More federal support for groundwater recharge and storage projects
to replenish the groundwater basins and prevent additional subsidence
will be beneficial. In addition, federal support will help to reduce
groundwater contamination through improved wastewater treatment
capabilities.
As the state of California moves toward implementation of the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), the inability to
efficiently move water through the Friant-Kern canal creates
significant hurdles as it limits the ability to move water from
Millerton Lake through to the southern end of the Friant service area.
This part of the San Joaquin Valley has significant groundwater
recharge potential, but it can only be fully realized if the
infrastructure exists to deliver water during times when excess flows
are in the system.
Drinking water and wastewater treatment for rural and small
communities is essential to their livelihood and ensures that all
Americans have an affordable, safe, and reliable food supply. There are
families in my district that cannot drink the water out of their taps
due to poor water quality and contamination issues. According to recent
reports, as many as one million Californians lack drinking water that
meets federal standards. American consumers, including our hardworking
farmworker communities that break their backs to put food on our
tables, deserve the security of a high-quality, clean drinking water
supply.
Thank you for considering the needs of my constituents and I hope
to see Congress prioritize funding for these initiatives, which will
improve the lives of residents of the Central Valley and increase the
food security of our nation.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Cunningham, a Representative in Congress
from the State of South Carolina
Mr. Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves and distinguished
Members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to submit
testimony. I have the great honor of representing South Carolina's
First Congressional District, which includes Charleston, Beaufort,
Berkeley, Colleton, and Dorchester counties.
As I'm sure the Members of this Committee would agree, the United
States is urgently in need of significant investments in its crumbling
infrastructure if we intend to continue to be competitive in the 21st
century. As co-chair of the Blue Dog Coalition's Infrastructure Task
Force, I stand ready to assist this committee in passing a bipartisan
infrastructure plan that improves our roads and bridges, modernizes our
nation's electrical grids, revitalizes our ports and waterways, and
creates well-paying jobs across the country.
There's very little that is more important to the future of our
nation than fixing our crumbling infrastructure--and that's
particularly true in the Lowcountry. In the last few years, South
Carolina has been inundated with historic flooding, unprecedented high
tides, erosion, harsh storm surges, and hurricanes. As we continue to
face the impacts of climate change, we know these problems will only
get worse.
In Charleston, flooding threatens to compromise our medical
district. During hurricanes and heavy rains, access to our hospitals,
including Ralph Johnson VA Medical Center, can be cut off when the
community needs them the most. First responders are forced to grapple
with flooded facilities and streets as they make rescues. Sea level
rise and recurrent flooding also threaten nearly every military
installation in the district. Parris Island, Marine Corps Air Station
Beaufort, and Joint Base Charleston are not only critical to our
national security but are also indispensable to our local economy.
To build a flood-resistant South Carolina we first need enhanced
collaboration and partnership. That is why I will soon be introducing
legislation to allow the Department of Veterans Affairs to work with
the surrounding community to mitigate recurrent flooding. Our flooding
problems do not have jurisdictional bounds, so we must work together to
solve this problem on the municipal, regional, state, and federal
levels.
Likewise, the US Coast Guard needs similar authority to work with
local partners to ensure they are not cut off when we need them the
most. The area surrounding Coast Guard Sector Charleston, based
downtown, is highly susceptible to flooding, which can prevent
personnel from being relieved and severely limit search and rescue
operations during natural disasters.
As we near the beginning of another hurricane season, the Coast
Guard is at the frontlines of the Lowcountry's response efforts to
natural disasters and I am grateful for their contributions to response
and recovery efforts. So, I ask that this committee continue to support
the Coast Guard by ensuring they have the resources they need to save
lives.
As legislation is developed, the Committee should ensure local
communities are made part of the process by allowing them direct access
to federal funding. Legislation should also encourage the efficient use
and leveraging of federal funds by establishing a program to provide
federal funding to local communities that have implemented a dedicated
revenue stream for transportation investment and can independently fund
at least 70 percent of a project seeking federal aid. A program such as
this will incentivize more local transportation investment and will
avoid penalizing local communities that have taken the necessary, and
sometimes politically tough, steps to provide dedicated funding for
transportation improvements.
As you continue formulating the committee's policy agenda for the
116th Congress, I look forward to working with each of you all on each
of these issues. Thank you for the opportunity to submit my testimony.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Madeleine Dean, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Thank you, Chairman DeFazio and the members of the Committee, for
holding this member day hearing--allowing us to discuss the needs and
priorities of our constituents.
As the Committee lays out its agenda for the 116th Congress and
begins to craft a new, comprehensive transportation bill, I would like
to highlight the needs and opportunities in my district, PA-04--which
will benefit from strong investments in our infrastructure.
I hope that the members give special attention to the needs of our
multi-modal transportation--our buses, passenger rail, bike lanes,
trails, and more. Multi-modal transportation systems have several
positive benefits, such as reducing congestion, preventing deaths,
cutting travel times, benefitting our environment, and promoting
economic activity. In the greater Philadelphia area, SEPTA--our
regional transportation service--generates $3.05 billion in
Pennsylvania. Importantly, these systems and modes of travel also
reduce our emissions and carbon footprint. As we look for substantive
measures to curb climate change, increasing the amount and access to
modes of public transportation must be part of this conversation.
Transit systems, in particular, have the ability to move large
numbers of people in a fraction of the time, space, and carbon output
as travelling individually in a car. Our goal in Congress must be to
support and grow these systems, but it cannot be at the expense of
equity and access. We must also ensure that city and regional buses and
trains connect to all communities--rich and poor--allowing for
increased mobility of their residents, as well as attracting the
potential for economic development. SEPTA has a regional impact that
supports 23,000 jobs and more then $1.7 billion in earnings in
communities across Southeastern Pennsylvania.
In 1981, the city of Pottstown in my district was a thriving
manufacturing center and suburban hub. But that year its commuter rail
line was suspended--which had detrimental effects on its community and
economy. Many people who worked in Philadelphia left because they could
not easily commute; the city lost a large portion of its tax base, and
businesses left the city. Today, Pottstown has the highest poverty rate
of any municipality in Pennsylvania's Fourth District.
Still, it is a city with hope. The residents, officials, and
community leaders in Pottstown are diligently working to invest in its
communities and revitalize their neighborhoods. Ensuring people have
access to transit systems starts right here in Washington--by providing
robust funding and creating grant programs to help communities rebound,
build equitable infrastructure, and incentivize transit use. Today,
there is a planned rail line to a commercial hub in my district--King
of Prussia--that would connect to rail lines in under resourced
communities like Norristown and even sections of Philadelphia. These
and many communities across America that have had similar paths as
Pottstown are in dire need of investment--and those communities deserve
a voice here in Washington.
We must also take the opportunity to invest in our trails and bike
lanes. Not only are these modes of transportation zero emission, but
they provide economic benefits as well. The Circuit--a large trail
network project in the Greater Philadelphia region that receives
federal funds--is directly benefitting local communities. This includes
real estate value, millions of dollars in direct economic impact, and
even a reduction in regional medical costs according to one 2011 study.
One way to ensure these transportation routes are completely funded, is
ensuring increased funding of the FAST Act Transportation Alternatives
Set-Asides at 10% of the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program
(STBGP). In Pennsylvania 84% of project applications are not funded
equally $367,130,228 unfunded project costs. Across the nation that
cost rises to $3.5 billion. These unfunded projects are detrimental
communities who are hoping to create safe, environmentally friendly and
economically prosperous bike and pedestrian systems.
Finally, and importantly, I hope the Committee considers the need
for robust overhaul of our drinking water systems to ensure clean
drinking water for every American. In particular, communities across
the nation--including in my district--are suffering from PFAS
contamination of the water supply--a chemical used in fire-fighting
foam. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
these chemicals have been linked to a number of detrimental health
effects including developmental effects in infants, issues with
fertility, and an increase risk of cancer. What was once an unknown
contaminant used on military bases across the country is now an urgent
health risk.
I thank the Committee for recently holding a hearing on the Clean
Water State Revolving fund and urge the members to consider the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund in your agenda going forward. State
and local governments have been able to use the grants in the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund to install technologies that clean PFAS
contamination, or to provide alternative water to local residents.
Every American has the right to live a healthy life, and that
requires our government to ensure every person has access to clean
water.
Thank you again for your commitment to bettering our communities. I
look forward to working with the members of the Committee as you
continue your important work.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Connecticut
Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves, I submit this testimony
to bring attention to the need for a national infrastructure
development bank. When your committee considers infrastructure
legislation, we need to pursue clear, comprehensive policy that
addresses the scope of the problem as soon as possible. According to
the American Society of Engineers, the United States must invest $4.69
trillion by 2025 to bring infrastructure to a state of good repair. We
need a robust investment to exceed that amount in order to not only fix
our current infrastructure state, but to invest in new projects to
bring our infrastructure system into the 21st century. In addition, we
need to pursue innovative financing that can help supplement gaps in
current funding. I believe this can be achieved with a national
infrastructure bank.
When your committee, and Congress as a whole, considers
infrastructure, I encourage you to support the creation of a national
infrastructure development bank to help supplement gaps in investment.
It would be a bold step forward that addresses the tremendous shortfall
in infrastructure investment, creates jobs, spurs long-term economic
growth, and improves our competitiveness in a global economy.
As you know, the National Infrastructure Development Bank Act of
2019 (H.R. 658) would create a government-owned corporation, modeled
after the European Investment Bank, which would leverage private sector
dollars from institutional investors, such as pension funds, to invest
in projects beyond surface transportation such as broadband, energy,
wastewater, and environmental initiatives. It would provide loans and
loan guarantees to projects, and issue Public Benefit Bonds with
proceeds to fund projects. The bank would be led by an independent
Board of Directors that would, among other things, make final
infrastructure financing determinations, an Executive Committee to
handle the day-to-day operations of the bank; and Risk Management and
Audit Committees to carefully manage risk and monitor the bank's
activities.
In addition, projects would be evaluated through an analysis of the
economic, environmental, and social benefits, as well as the cost and
if they can get 50 percent of funding from other sources. The bill also
lays out specific criteria for each form of infrastructure. For
example, reduction in surface and air traffic congestion for
transportation projects; public health for environmental projects;
reduction in greenhouse gas for energy projects; and expanding
broadband into rural and disadvantaged communities for
telecommunications projects. There is no minimum dollar amount required
for a project to receive financing from the Bank. A project can be of
significance yet not be major in terms of a dollar amount attached to
it. Safe drinking water, for example is critical to any area, rural or
urban, regardless of the cost.
Lastly, employee protection provisions are included to ensure that
while the infrastructure bank creates new jobs, it also does not
displace current workers. When federal funds are used to acquire,
improve or operate a transit system, federal law requires arrangements
to protect the rights of affected transit employees. My legislation
ensures that Bank investments do not undermine the collective
bargaining rights or job status of the people who are employed in this
field. It also extends those protections to any employees that may be
impacted by Bank financing of other reconstruction, rehabilitation,
replacement or expansion projects.
In sum, in addition to needed robust public investment, a National
Infrastructure Bank would supplement current federal financing
mechanisms. Instead of focusing solely on transportation, the Bank
would finance a wide range of infrastructure projects and it would be a
self-sustaining entity to help support United States infrastructure
development over the long-term.
Thank you for your attention to my statement, as well as my
legislation. Your leadership will be essential as congress considers
new investments to address our growing infrastructure deficiencies. I
look forward to working with you on this critical matter.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and honorable members of
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, thank you for
allowing me to submit this testimony in support of my bipartisan bill,
H.R. 2692, the Broadband Conduit Deployment Act.
This commonsense, bipartisan legislation would mandate the
inclusion of conduit--plastic pipes which house fiberoptic cables--
during road construction receiving federal funding if there is a
demonstrated need for broadband in the area within the next 15 years.
`Dig once' eliminates the need for digging up roads to install conduit
for fiber at a later date. We call it a `dig once' policy.
According to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 21.3
million Americans lack access to broadband.\1\ Much of this is simply a
problem of economics. Many rural communities and low-income
neighborhoods in urban settings do not have the number of residents to
make infrastructure investment profitable for private companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``2019 Broadband Deployment Report'' (Federal Communications
Commission, forthcoming).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
`Dig once' is a smart, economical solution because the cost savings
from this policy are significant. The Federal Highway Administration
estimates it is ten times more expensive to dig up an existing road for
conduit than to include it during road construction.\2\ A Government
Accountability Office study found that a `dig once' policy can save 25
to 33 percent in construction costs in urban areas and 16 percent in
rural areas.\3\ These costs don't include the inconvenience of
communities where roads are dug up a second time, disrupting traffic
patterns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Executive Order: Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure
Deployment, USDOT-FHWA Background Paper and Work Plan Strategy''
(Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and
Office of Policy and Governmental Affairs, December 2012), https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/workplan.pdf.
\3\ ``Planning and Flexibility Are Key to Effectively Deploying
Broadband Conduit through Federal Highway Projects'' (Government
Accountability Office, June 27, 2012), https://www.gao.gov/assets/600/
591928.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
`Dig once' ensures that we don't leave rural and low-income urban
communities out of 21st Century infrastructure. When America
experienced electrification, we invested in ensuring all Americans
would have access to this ground-breaking new technology. When America
gained telephony, we did the same. This is why there are electricity
and telephone poles throughout rural America and in low-income urban
neighborhoods.
I first introduced this bill in 2009 when our country began
installing fiber cables in serious, though insufficient, ways. Over the
years, companies, industry groups, and left-leaning and right-leaning
groups have all supported `dig once.' Some states and cities have
instituted their own `dig once' policies. Our country's first National
Broadband Plan called for Congress to pass `dig once' legislation.\4\
In her 2019 book Fiber, Harvard Law Professor and telecommunications
expert Susan Crawford specifically endorses the `dig once' policy.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``National Broadband Plan'' (Federal Communications Commission,
March 17, 2010), https://transition.fcc.gov/national-broadband-plan/
national-broadband-plan.pdf.
\5\ Susan Crawford, Fiber: The Coming Tech Revolution--and Why
America Might Miss It (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018),
208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last year, a preliminary version of the `dig once' policy was part
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, requiring states to begin
the process of analyzing the need for conduit. The Broadband Conduit
Deployment Act of 2019 provides the much-needed next step of requiring
the inclusion of conduit in federally-funded road construction.
All of us in Congress must consider how our country will operate
years and decades in the future. This committee is unique in being
charged with setting the very literal physical foundation upon which
our country's future will be built. It is in this spirit I ask you
considerconnectivity and broadband as issues worthy of consideration.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dwight Evans, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Thank you, Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves, for allowing
me the opportunity to provide written testimony. I would like to thank
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for granting us the
opportunity to discuss the crucial transportation and infrastructural
issues challenging the country today.
I represent the 3rd Congressional District, which includes
Northwest and West Philadelphia and parts of North, South, Southwest
and Center City Philadelphia. Pennsylvania ranks fifth in the nation
for population and sixth in gross state productivity. As such, its
citizens--like so many others in the nation--depend on its
infrastructure. The Keystone State hosts over 5,000 miles of freight
rail, more than 20,000 highway bridges, and more than 3,000 state
regulated dams. Philadelphia is also home to the country's sixth
largest public transportation system, SEPTA.
Yet these critical systems and many more are in disarray. In
Philadelphia, too many streets are riddled with potholes and cars are
getting ruined by the on-going stress of hitting crater-sized holes in
the road. In 2017, Pennsylvania's drinking water was ranked the 3rd
most contaminated water in the nation. The aging water infrastructure
that affects cities and small towns throughout our country, puts
millions of Americans at risk every day.
In the city of Philadelphia, tens of thousands of children are
attending schools that have had lead in the water, lead dust from
chipped paint, and asbestos fibers in settled dust. Although city and
state officials have put a limited amount of joint funding toward these
issues, the School District of Philadelphia needs federal help to
ensure the safety of our beloved children and teachers.
However, what is happening to school facilities in Philadelphia is
not isolated to my city--there are crumbling school buildings
throughout the nation and this problem needs to be addressed and
included as we discuss infrastructure in Congress.
Across our country there are children and teachers who are wearing
coats in their classrooms to stay warm, crowdsourcing to raise funds
that will repair broken air conditioners ahead of summer months, and so
much more.
Our youngest and brightest learners should have high-quality school
facilities so they can achieve their dreams. Instead, too many of them
are trying to learn in subpar facilities--even though we expect
exceptional results.
I serve on the Ways and Means Committee, where I urge support for
the Rehabilitation of Historic Schools Act, H.R. 158. Among other
tools, my bill would make available a tax credit to repair our
children's schools so they can succeed in education and in life. These
are the same federal rehabilitation tax credits that President Trump
used to renovate the Old Post Office Building in Washington, D.C. and
turn it into his own upscale hotel. I believe this tax credit should be
expanded to work `For The People.'
But this solution is just one proposal. Our country needs more than
$4.5 trillion by 2025 to fix our crumbling roads, bridges, train
tracks, and dams. We have an opportunity to work together across party
lines to make a once-in-a-generation massive investment in
infrastructure. Fixing our children's schools, ensuring the quality of
our water supplies, and maintaining transportation networks must be
part of that investment. Too often failures in our infrastructure
affect those who live in poverty--a condition over which children have
no control. Let us not abandon the responsibility we have to all our
citizens, especially those most vulnerable.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ruben Gallego, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Arizona
I urge the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to pass a
bi-partisan infrastructure package to improve and modernize our
nation's roads, bridges, dams, airports, schools, wastewater, rail,
electrical, and broadband systems. Year after year, the American
Society of Civil Engineers gives U.S. infrastructure a failing grade
and concludes that it is unable to meet the demands of a modern, 21st
century economy.
The longer we wait to make smart, cost-effective investments in our
aging infrastructure system, the more it will restrict growth and the
costlier it will become to eventually fix in the long-term. The time to
act is now, and I am encouraged that there is support on both sides of
the aisle to address this issue this Congress. I look forward to
working with the committee on ensuring that Arizona's priorities,
especially innovative water management investments, are included in any
infrastructure package that it may consider.
The committee should also be aware of how important sustained
transit and light rail investments through the Federal Transit
Administration's (FTA) Capital Investment Grant Program (CIG) are to
the City of Phoenix and the district I represent. These federal
investments have been matched by elected representatives and local
taxpayers who have voted repeatedly for dedicated transit taxes. Today,
Valley Metro, which operates the transit system in the Phoenix, Arizona
metropolitan area, serves nearly 4 million residents and over 16
million visitors annually.
In particular, a light rail investment will help connect residents
in south Phoenix to downtown and the east Valley, creating affordable
access to jobs, health care, education, and business. Since
construction began in 2005, Valley Metro's light rail system has grown
to 26 miles and 35 stations, which serve the fastest growing region in
the United States that attracts billions of dollars of outside
investment into our local economy. None of this would have been
possible with without sustained federal investment and partnership
through CIG. In fact, federal funding has helped leverage $7.6 billion
in private and $2.5 billion in public funding to help modernize our
transportation system, support local businesses, and create jobs.
I know that Valley Metro values the partnership with the FTA and is
very pleased to have received a $75 million allocation for the Tempe
streetcar project as well as engineering approval for the South Central
LRT extension. Currently, Valley Metro is working with FTA on Letters
of No Prejudice that would allow for the advancement of both projects.
However, I remain concerned that the Trump Administration's efforts
to reduce the federal match for CIG projects could undermine important
transit investments in communities across the country. President
Trump's FY 2020 Budget Request for CIG states:
``The FTA encourages project sponsors to provide an overmatch
as a means of funding more projects and leveraging State, local
and private financial resources including through the use of
value capture. For large projects, the maximum federal share
has been less than 38 percent in new FFGAs awarded since
January 2017.''
Many of these projects, including projects that meet every single
Section 5309 CIG statutory criterion for funding, would not be possible
without at least a 50-50 federal match. I urge the committee to ensure
that the Trump Administration honors the intent of the CIG program and
ensures that eligible projects move expeditiously through the CIG
pipeline, in accordance with federal law. Dramatically changing the
federal match, especially for projects that are already moving through
the CIG pipeline, could undermine important transit investments in
Phoenix and across the country.
Thank you for your attention to these important issues, and I look
forward to working with you as the committee moves forward with its
work.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the
Committee:
There are two projects vital to east Texas located near the city of
Nacogdoches. The first of these projects is the reconstruction of the
US-59/US-259 interchange north of Nacogdoches. This interchange is
already extremely busy, and it will only increase in importance as US-
59 continues to be converted into Interstate 69.
Aside from the need to improve the US-59/US-259 interchange in
anticipation of Interstate 69 construction, changes to the interchange
must be made to address safety concerns. Specifically, the
interchange's cloverleaf design has led to routine truck overturns as
loads shift when trucks take the interchange. This history of overturns
has led to extreme risk of casualties and truly must be mitigated as
US-59 becomes part of the national Interstate system as Interstate 69.
The second project that needs your attention concerns additional
problems that have arisen during construction of Interstate 69 on the
Nacogdoches ``west loop.'' This section of Interstate 69 passes along
nearly the entire length of the city but lacks a designation and
establishment of definitive right-of-ways, creating considerable
confusion and problems due to federal indecision. Definitive steps must
be taken to specifically designate the Interstate 69 route as soon as
possible.
Along with this testimony, a map is included that illustrates the
importance of these projects and the substantial impact they will have
on the city and the region. If you require any additional information
on these extremely important projects, please do not hesitate to let me
know.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Arizona
Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves:
There is broad consensus that previous Congresses and
Administrations failed to invest sufficiently in our nation's
infrastructure. The degrading impacts of this prolonged failure are
evident in the crumbling roads and malfunctioning mass transit systems
Americans are forced to navigate daily.
Sadly, when those same weary commuters embark on vacation visits to
National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, Forests or other federal conservation
and recreation areas, they face the same decrepit infrastructure, which
degrades their visitor experiences and harms the natural resources they
travelled to enjoy.
Fortunately, there is also broad public consensus that now is the
time for Congress and the Administration to work together to address
this national emergency. I appreciate the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee's invitation to Members of Congress to offer
testimony regarding our nation's infrastructure needs and write to
offer an assessment of those needs on federal lands.
Highway Trust Fund Programs
Through the most recent funding legislation (FAST Act, P.L. 114-
94), the Federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF) provides significant funding
for infrastructure programs on federal lands. Whether through a
reauthorization of the HTF, or as part of a larger infrastructure
package, these programs deserve increased funding.
Federal Lands Transportation Program (FTLP)
FTLP provides funding for federally-owned transportation assets on
public lands. Investing in high-priority assets would go a long way
towards reducing the federal land management agencies' deferred
maintenance backlog, as many of the most pressing and expensive
maintenance needs--including over $6 billion of NPS' $11.9 billion
backlog--are driven by transportation infrastructure. The program is
currently authorized at $355 million annually, to be divided among more
than half a dozen federal land management agencies. Request: $750
million annually.
Tribal Transportation Program
Roads and bridges on Tribal land are among the most dilapidated in
the nation. The ongoing failure to provide for adequate transportation
systems for Native People is a breach of the federal government's trust
responsibilities. The Tribal Transportation Program distributes funding
based on a formula calculating road mileage, tribal population, and
relative need. The program is currently funded at $485 million
annually, with a new Self Governance program allowing qualifying tribes
to administer the spending. Request: $800 million annually.
Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP)
FLAP supports State and locally-owned transportation assets that
allow Americans to access and enjoy their public lands. As the
availability of public, open spaces for Americans to recreate dwindles,
the infrastructure making remaining federal areas accessible is more
important than ever. FLAP is currently authorized at $260 million per
year. Request: $500 million annually.
Puerto Rico and Territorial Highway Programs
The Puerto Rico and Territorial Highway Programs are funded at $158
million and $42 million, respectively. Not only has this level of
funding proved inadequate to meet existing needs, recent severe weather
events have devastated infrastructure in these areas. Climate change
will only cause more frequent disasters. Request: $300 million for
Puerto Rico and $100 million for other U.S. Territories.
Funding Subject to Appropriations
In addition to funds from the Highway Trust Fund, Congress has
provided funding from the General Fund, subject to appropriations, for
the Puerto Rico and Territories' Highway programs; such funding must
continue.
Congress has also provided appropriated dollars for the Nationally
Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects Program (NSFLTP). This
program, designed to address large-scale projects costing more than $25
million, is a critical funding source for once-in-a-generation funding
needs and must continue to receive significant resources.
Critical Aspects of a Larger Infrastructure Proposal
In addition to extending the vital funding provided through the
Highway Trust Fund, there is also broad public support for more
comprehensive legislation with the potential to remake transportation
and infrastructure in the United States. Should Congress find the will
to approve such legislation, projects and programs on federal lands
must be included.
US Forest Service Legacy Roads and Trails Program (LRT)
Appropriated funding for this USFS program has been eliminated, but
between 2008 and 2012, the program provided $300 million for storm
proofing roads, bridges and trails for more extreme weather; culvert
replacement; fish passageway; trail repair; and decommissioning of
unneeded or environmentally hazardous roads. Reinstating LRT funding
would help prepare the National Forest System for future climate
change, including the likelihood of more extreme weather. Request: $80
million annually.
National Park Service Cyclic Maintenance, Repair, and Rehabilitation
Projects
Much of the multi-billion-dollar maintenance backlog facing our
National Park System is infrastructure related. A new, significant
investment in the maintenance of established assets would prevent
further additions to the deferred maintenance backlog. Request: $200
million annually.
Community Wildfire Protection Planning
It is estimated that more than 70,000 U.S. communities are at risk
from wildfire in the wildland-urban interface, yet fewer than 15,000
have wildfire protection plans. Programs like Firewise USA help assist
communities become fire adapted by providing a collaborative framework
to help reduce wildfire risk but are similarly being underutilized
considering the size and scope of wildfire risks to communities. A new
Community Wildfire Protection Planning program would provide financial
and technical assistance to communities, as well as home and business
owners, to help improve resilience by utilizing wildfire resistant
building materials for new construction and retrofits, assessing
hazards, sharing best practices for wildfire risk reduction, and
creating wildfire protection plans based on science-based forest
restoration. Request: $150 million annually.
Civilian Conservation Corps
Civilian Conservation Corps help federal land management agencies
perform necessary maintenance and upkeep on federal lands, including
the creation and maintenance of trails and important forest resiliency
work. These programs help the agencies maintain assets under their care
and provide job training and real-world skills to service members,
including tribal youth. Request: $20 million annually.
Wildlife Corridors
America's native fish, wildlife, and plant species have been
declining as a result of habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation.
Data shows that maintaining habitat connectivity supports higher
species diversity and lowers their risk of extinction. Wildlife
corridors, road crossings, and other habitat connectivity efforts are
necessary to ensure wildlife can continue to migrate, move, and thrive
in the face of increasing threats, while protecting public safety.
Request: $20 million annually.
Coastal Resiliency Grants
Coastal Resiliency Grants would improve upon the National Oceans
and Coastal Security Act administered by NOAA. Currently, the Act
allows NOAA to better understand the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. A
new grant program would direct funding to protecting, conserving, and
restoring coastal resources, including efforts to address impacts of
sea level change, sedimentation, and hurricanes. Request: $100 million,
annually.
Living Shorelines
Congress should authorize a Living Shorelines program under NOAA to
issue grants to States and local governments to carry out shoreline
stabilization projects that utilize natural materials. Living
shorelines use plants or other natural elements to stabilize estuarine
coasts, bays, and tributaries, Living shorelines are often better than
``hard'' shoreline stabilization methods by providing nutrient
pollution remediation, essential fish habitat, and buffer the
shorelines from waves and storms. They also store carbon. Request: $20
million annually.
Tribal Climate Change Infrastructure Program
Coastal tribal communities are on the front lines and currently
experiencing the effects of climate change. A comprehensive
infrastructure package should include support for moving tribal
communities from land damaged due to a rise in ocean water levels. This
program should also include emergency recovery efforts for tribes
drastically impacted by severe storms or flooding related to climate
change. Request: $100 million annually.
I am well aware of the difficulty your Committee and the Congress
faces in designing and funding a plan ambitious enough to address this
nation's infrastructure emergency. As Chair of the Natural Resources
Committee, I can attest that the infrastructure needs on federal lands
are significant, and I stand ready to assist in your efforts to craft a
solution that will keep this country moving forward.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jahana Hayes, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Connecticut
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, thank you for the
opportunity to submit this testimony to the Committee. Transportation
and infrastructure are vitally important to both me and my
constituents, and I appreciate the opportunity to be able to outline my
priorities for you.
Very few states are as diverse as mine when it comes to
transportation. Connecticut is home to airports, train stations, major
highways, and dirt country roads. But, Connecticut is also home to the
5th worst infrastructure in the nation. The need for robust funding for
our transportation systems and infrastructure is no more obvious than
in Connecticut, and continued funding support for all forms of
transportation, from road to rail to pedestrian, is a priority for my
constituents.
Of the 4,238 bridges in Connecticut, 332 are classified as
structurally deficient, with repairs needed across the board. These
repairs are estimated to cost over $1 billion to complete. In addition,
nearly 25% of Connecticut's bridges are considered outdated and do not
meet current standards. With some bridges seeing as many as 145,000
daily crossings, the danger that these structurally deficient bridges
pose can not be understated.
Among the many concerns I hear from constituents in my district are
the need to properly fund the Highway Trust Fund and reauthorize the
FAST Act. Ensuring the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund is essential
to the success of our transportation system. The FAST Act, the first
federal law in over a decade to provide long-term funding certainty for
surface transportation infrastructure planning and investment, is set
to expire on September 30, 2020. We must reauthorize this funding.
However, their concerns do not stop there. When looking at our
infrastructure system, we must address the urgent need to make
improvements to physical access to federally funded facilities for all
Americans, particularly those with disabilities.
One of the main reasons for today's crumbling roads, bridges,
electrical power systems and water systems is corrosion. Corrosion
threatens the continuous operation of these systems and exacts a global
cost of $2.5 trillion. While some federal agencies and many state
agencies utilize industry recognized anti-corrosion control policies,
the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) does not. I hope to see
full inclusion of a corrosion control policy implemented at USDOT.
When looking to the future, effective planning solutions should
address a variety of needs within the transportation system. That is
why we must increase funding for transportation planning programs.
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) need sufficient funding to
assess an increasingly complex array of activities, including more
planning based on performance-based criteria. When planning for
infrastructure projects, we must ensure that they provide long-term
benefits to the public; consider the cost of the entire project,
including design, building, and operation; are built sustainably; and
engage local, state, and private investment as vital partners in a
strong infrastructure plan.
Any infrastructure plan must bring all stakeholders into the fold
and allow local municipalities with expertise in their respective
regions to be at the table. That is why it is important that we
increase funding for the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program
(STBGP). This program provides states and MPOs the most flexibility to
implement regional priorities. Increasing the allocation to this
program will further enhance local authority in determining
transportation improvements. Additionally, formula distribution of
funds is more equitable and helps ensure all communities receive a
level of funding needed to maintain transportation infrastructure and
allow MPOs to set regional spending priorities.
In many areas of Connecticut, there is an inconsistency between the
metropolitan planning area under the jurisdiction of an MPO and the
Census-defined urbanized area. Regional planning areas have evolved
over time and represent long-standing inter-municipal relationships and
better reflect commute and travel patterns and transportation issues
and needs. Census-defined urbanized areas are not consistently
reflective of transportation realities. Making sure that our
infrastructure system is nimble and able to adapt when needed is key to
long term success.
Thank you again for this opportunity. I look forward to working
with the Committee on these priorities.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kendra S. Horn, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Oklahoma
Introduction
It's no secret that America's infrastructure is faltering. That
applies to all forms of infrastructure, from the first thing that often
comes to mind--roadways and water facilities--to internet access,
highways and health record management. Our deteriorating infrastructure
is affecting the district of every Member of Congress and we must work
to address it before it is too late.
Transit
At the heart of the district I represent, 5th district of Oklahoma,
is Oklahoma City. Over the last decade Oklahoma City's transportation
services have grown significantly, giving its citizens more options and
flexibility in how they move around the city.
One of the highlights of this growth is the $135 million streetcar
project that was completed at the end of last year. The electric
streetcars, which run along tracks like trolleys, link our city's
important districts in and around downtown. The streetcars have only
been in operation for roughly five months but have already hosted
206,019 riders.
The streetcar program is a most noteworthy accomplishment to come
out of Oklahoma City's MAPS program. The acronym, which has become a
household name for locals, stands for Metropolitan Area Projects. It
uses voter-approved and specified sales taxes for projects that make
our city a better place to live, work and visit. The program began in
the early 1990s and is widely credited with revitalizing the city after
a 1980s oil crash devastated the area. MAPS funding paid for the
streetcar project and the improvements that came along with it.
Oklahoma City has been smart with their federal dollars. At the end
of last year, our city received a $14.3 million grant to pursue bus
rapid transit. Essentially, we will use buses and exclusive lanes to
mimic commuter rail, while dropping the start-up costs dramatically.
The city's new bus rapid transit line will to connect the northwest
part of the metropolitan area, which is home to businesses, hospitals,
and neighborhoods, to our downtown area and the streetcar.
The growth of Oklahoma City's transportation infrastructure is
broadening and allowing local leaders to not just focus on
transportation within the city, but also ways to connect the entire
region of Central Oklahoma. Earlier this year, the Mayors of six
Central Oklahoma cities, including Oklahoma City, agreed to the
creation of the Regional Transit Authority of Central Oklahoma,
otherwise known as the RTA. The RTA will oversee all transit projects
going forward within Oklahoma City, including bus rapid transit and the
streetcar system. It will also work to connect Oklahoma City with
cities around Central Oklahoma.
Never before have local governments in Central Oklahoma come
together as they have to create the RTA. This new partnership shows the
importance and desire for transit infrastructure among Oklahoma cities.
Much like the local government leaders in Central Oklahoma, the
state government has also been focusing on transportation
infrastructure improvements. Oklahoma's Governor recently signed
legislation into law that would transfer the current Transit Division
within the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) to a new Office
of Mobility and Public Transit.
This new division assumes all responsibilities of the Transit
Division as well as implementation of any Federal Transit
Administration programs not currently managed by ODOT. The new division
will be charged with overseeing a network of public transit systems
around the state. Further, the new division will be charged with
funding and development of the Oklahoma Public Transit Policy Plan to
ensure future growth. Importantly, the creation of this new division
within ODOT is fiscally responsible, with no anticipated direct fiscal
impact on the state budget.
The state government has also begun to address Oklahoma's
unfriendly infrastructure towards cyclists and pedestrians. In its 2017
annual report card, the League of American Bicyclists ranked Oklahoma
46 in bike friendliness. Additionally, according to data provided by
the Federal Highways Administration, there were on average 663 non-
motorized fatalities and serious injuries involving a motor vehicle
every year between 2012 and 2016 in Oklahoma, higher than the majority
of states.
Fortunately, legislation was recently passed at the state level to
improve safety and increase penalties regarding motor vehicles
overtaking cyclists, going beyond the standard 3-foot rule that ensures
adequate space for bicyclists from passing motor vehicles.
Additionally, later this year the Oklahoma Department of Transportation
will host the first day of the Oklahoma Bike Summit. The Summit will
include educational information sessions on how infrastructure can
hinder or help bike and pedestrian safety in Oklahoma,
As a member of the House Bike Caucus and advocate for cyclists I
applaud these efforts. Recognizing the need to have safer streets for
cyclists, and all pedestrians, will open up Oklahoma's streets to
residents and encourage active lifestyles.
Rural Infrastructure
We shouldn't prioritize our cities over our rural neighbors when it
comes to transportation. The transportation and infrastructure needs of
our rural communities are different than those of our cities.
Nonetheless, they are equally important and we must work to address
them.
Jones is a small town in the 5th District that is half an hour
northeast of Oklahoma City and home to about 3,000 Oklahomans.
Northeast of Jones, the North Canadian River runs through and around
the roadways there. In the last ten years, the river's banks have
eroded causing road and bridge closures in the area. Residents spend
more time on alternative roads just to get their kids to school or go
to work.
Since taking office, I've visited Jones and toured the damaged
areas. Meanwhile, my office is working with local leaders to obtain
funding to redirect the North Canadian River and rebuild these critical
roadways. But Jones' infrastructure failings and the negative effects
they have had on the community are happening in rural communities
across our country.
Eroding river banks are only a facet of the larger infrastructure
challenges they face. Pipe networks and wastewater treatment facilities
throughout our nation, especially in rural communities, are either
outdated or quickly approaching a critical need for repair or
reconstruction. The American Society of Civil Engineers graded
America's wastewater infrastructure a D+ in its 2017 Infrastructure
Report Card.
A deteriorating wastewater infrastructure is a health hazard for
all Americans, but for those living in rural communities that are often
far away from hospitals and doctors, the risk is even greater. The EPA
estimates that nearly $300 billion is needed for wastewater treatment
infrastructure over the next 25 years to fully update and enhance our
current wastewater system. This is a substantial investment, but it is
a necessary one for the health, safety, and longevity of our
communities.
While our rural communities, by definition, are far from our
metropolitan centers, we cannot allow them to become isolated from the
rest of the world. Too many rural areas do not have reliable broadband
access and it is hindering their ability to compete with urban areas in
healthcare, business, and general quality of life.
I have supported several measures this session that focus on
increasing broadband connectivity for rural communities. I voted for
the Delgado Amendment to the Save the Internet Act, which directs the
Government Accountability Office to research ways we can make broadband
coverage better and more affordable for rural internet users. I also
voted for H.R. 1328, which would create the Office of Internet
Connectivity and Growth within the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration. This office would maintain a database to
track broadband infrastructure built with federal support and help
streamline federal broadband resources so local business and community
leaders will have better access to them.
Strengthening broadband in rural areas must be a part of our
country's infrastructure improvements so our rural communities can grow
alongside their urban counterparts.
Space and Aerospace
We do ourselves a disservice when we ignore the skies above us when
discussing infrastructure. America has long been a world leader in
aerospace and space, in large part due to work that was done in
Oklahoma, but we must continue to focus on updating and supporting our
infrastructure in these areas if we are to continue to lead.
Oklahoma City is home to the Federal Aviation Administration's
(FAA) Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, one of the ten largest
employers in the State. Up to 2,000 students attend the Air Traffic
Control Aviation School at the Monroney Center every year. The training
being done at the Monroney Center is a critical piece of our national
infrastructure, which supports 45,000 air traffic control centers
worldwide. In my first speech in the House of Representatives, I
highlighted the importance of the Monroney Center to our national
infrastructure and the economic impact it provides Oklahoma City. I
recently toured the Monroney Center and witnessed firsthand the
intensive training they are doing there to ensure our air traffic
controllers are among the highest skilled in the world.
Training our FAA workforce is not the only service the Monroney
Center is providing our government. The Enterprise Service Center
(ESC), which is based at the Monroney Center, provides Federal Shared
Services to other government agencies outside of the FAA. By delivering
Federal Financial and Information Technology Services to other
government agencies, the ESC's customer agencies reduce costs through
economies of scale, partnerships, innovation, and improvement in
capital planning. With the significant shortage of air traffic
controllers being experienced by our nation and the tax payer dollars
being saved by the ESC, we must focus on supporting the Monroney Center
and its important work moving forward.
Looking even higher than the sky our planes fly across, our
infrastructure focus should also include our satellites orbiting earth.
These satellites affect almost every aspect of our daily life
including, GPS navigation, weather forecasting, and the precision
farming.
Satellites don't just affect our civilian way of life. They also
play a critical role in our national security and space exploration.
Satellite observations are used by our Armed Services to provide
important imagery of aircraft, ships, and ground forces worldwide. NASA
can use satellites to see into space better than telescopes on the
ground because satellites fly above molecules in the earth's atmosphere
that can block the view of telescopes.
According to the 2018 NASA Inspector General's annual report, more
than 80 percent of the Agency's facilities are 40 or more years old and
are beyond their design life. This has a negative impact on our
satellite infrastructure and is a grim reminder that we have fallen
behind in our space infrastructure investment.
As an Oklahoman, a member of the House Science, Space, and
Technology Committee, and chair of the Subcommittee on Space and
Aerospace, I know of the critical role the Mike Monroney Aeronautical
Center and satellites play in our national infrastructure. I implore
Congress to not forget about them when discussing national
infrastructure priorities.
Closing
Our country faces many problems with solutions that suffer at the
hands of partisan gridlock. Infrastructure isn't one of them. Americans
across the political spectrum agree: We need to build better roads,
bridges, and, highways. We need to make it for all of us to get to
work, to school and to our families. I'm excited to join my colleagues
to prioritize our infrastructure for the sake of our economy and
communities.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Will Hurd, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Texas
Colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
I'm here today to advocate for the establishment of a Smithsonian
Museum on the American Latino. The story of our nation cannot be told
without the story of Latino Americans. Throughout the nation, the
contributions of Latinos can be clearly seen and heard, and in my
majority-Hispanic district, I have seen firsthand Latinos shaping our
history and culture across local South and West Texas communities each
and every day.
The story of the American Latino doesn't just deserve to be told--
It needs to be told. That's why I proudly joined my friend Congressman
Serrano to reintroduce our bill in the House to create a National
Museum of the American Latino right here in our nation's capital on the
National Mall. This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue. This is an
American issue. This transcends each of us here today and will allow
future generations of Americans from sea to shining sea to learn from
our past, appreciate the progress made today and work together to
create a stronger future.
A Latino Museum is long overdue. I hope you agree and work with us
to move this bill this Congress on behalf of the 57 million plus
hardworking Latinos across the nation and all who came before them.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel T. Kildee, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Michigan
Thank you, Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves, for the
opportunity to provide my views on an infrastructure package.
In much of my work prior to coming to Congress, and one of my main
areas of focus since being elected, has been to focus on the condition
of America's older, industrial cities and towns. From small rural towns
to larger cities, there are too many places across our country that
continue to be one mistake away from fiscal failure. As Congress
considers a robust infrastructure package, we must look for ways to
specifically lift this subset of fiscally-stressed communities.
My hometown of Flint, Michigan has captured many newspaper
headlines in recent years. But even before the water crisis, Flint
faced unique challenges as an older, industrial city: population loss,
the outsourcing of jobs and rampant blight. Flint isn't an anomaly; a
whole subset of America's cities and towns face similar challenges.
There are places in every region of the country, like my hometown, that
face similar stressors.
These are real challenges that require action. It is long past time
for us to have a national strategy about how we approach and invest in
America's cities and towns. We cannot simply let these communities--
where millions of people live, work and raise their families--fall
further into decline. America needs these communities to succeed.
Sadly, federal policy has either failed to focus on these places
altogether or taken a balance-sheet approach to managing decline that
has led to a worse quality of life for those living in these
communities.
We need smart federal policy that supports increased opportunity
and promotes growth. We need policies that promote investment in the
already-built environment. Simply put, we need a Marshall Plan for
America's older, industrial cities and towns. That is where a big, bold
infrastructure plan comes into play.
Our infrastructure needs are pressing. The American Society of
Civil Engineers gives the U.S. a D+ and estimates the U.S. will need to
invest $4.9 trillion by 2025. In many of the communities that I
represent--Flint, Saginaw, Bay City and Oscoda--investment in our
roads, bridges and water systems is sorely needed. But as Congress
considers going big on infrastructure, we must ensure that new
infrastructure investment benefits all communities.
Without a clear plan and specific resources for hardest hit
communities, a massive influx of new capital in the form of an
infrastructure package could potentially contribute to further economic
disparity. Any infrastructure package needs to include a specific plan
that ensures older, industrial cities are in the same condition to
compete for capital and investment as more affluent communities.
Specifically, we must set aside funding to help older communities
remove the remnants of the past. This includes funding for remediation
and demolition of vacant commercial and residential buildings and
advanced funding for Brownfields cleanup. Time is the enemy of business
and real estate deals; it is vital that vacant industrial, commercial
and residential spaces are remediated and well-positioned for capital
investment. We should also set aside funding for communities that have
experienced significant population loss, which creates great fiscal
challenges for local governments to provide basic services. And it
should address the pressing needs of areas with chronically debilitated
housing markets.
Communities like my hometown of Flint are resilient communities--
they just need a fighting chance. Ensuring an infrastructure package
brings these communities up to a level playing field where they can
compete for new economic investment and jobs will help lift our older,
industrial cities and towns across America and the millions of families
who live within them.
I look forward to working with the Committee to ensure an
infrastructure bill will help all of America's cities and towns.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Derek Kilmer, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington
As the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee begins to
work on a comprehensive, and much needed, infrastructure package, I
appreciate this opportunity to share my priorities. As the Chair of the
New Democrat Coalition, a group of more than 100 Democrats in the House
seeking to look at old problems through a new lens, I view this effort
to modernize America's aging infrastructure as an essential component
of our broader efforts to create jobs, spur economic growth, and
increase our global competitiveness.
Last Congress, the New Democrat Coalition's Infrastructure Task
Force set broad priorities in ``Four Pillars for an Infrastructure
Deal.'' We proposed a plan that would:
1. Modernize America's infrastructure funding, revenue sources,
and cost analysis;
2. Create an infrastructure bank to finance projects;
3. Create incentives for communities most in need of building and
maintaining their infrastructure, including through grant programs; and
4. Encourage innovation and reform, including responsible
regulatory streamlining and private public partnerships, and the
adoption of new innovative technologies.
This Congress, our coalition is encouraged by the renewed,
bipartisan support for advancing legislation that will deliver on our
nation's infrastructure priorities, and we respectfully recommend the
Committee take the following recommendations into consideration as you
begin crafting this comprehensive infrastructure package.
First, we need to create a reliable funding source for
infrastructure that can't be looted for other projects. Even when
federal funding exists, local communities are running into real
challenges when trying to access it. Our constituents are ready for
innovations in financing. Among other things, our coalition believes
there's room for private public partnerships. I urge the Committee to
modernize funding for existing entities like the Highway Trust Fund
while also exploring new ideas like a public-private National
Infrastructure Bank, which could leverage federal funds to provide low-
cost loans or guarantees to state or local governments to finance
qualified infrastructure projects.
Second, in addition to upgrading our existing infrastructure, we
need to invest in new public transportation, alternative transportation
(like bikes and ``last mile'' alternatives), and project-based funding
to give our communities the flexibility to meet their unique local
needs. These projects are critical to connecting underserved
communities to economic opportunities, alleviating strain on our
existing roads, and reducing the overall environmental impact of our
transportation system.
Finally, the Committee should provide dedicated support for
projects that help communities become more energy efficient, resilient
and better prepared to deal with the impacts of climate change.
Communities across our country, especially our densely populated
economic centers and coastal communities, are already experiencing the
consequences of climate change. We need to invest in projects that
enhance climate resilience, while also reducing pollution and carbon
emissions. The New Democrat Coalition urges the Committee to take a
climate-forward approach to any infrastructure package.
Infrastructure projects are consistently evaluated as the best
return on government investments, so investing in our infrastructure is
more than just good politics, it's good economics. Supporting the
movement of people and goods on our nation's roads, bridges, ports, and
airports is crucial to driving investment in our communities. Enclosed
with this statement is a copy of ``Four Pillars for an Infrastructure
Deal'' put out by the New Democrat Coalition Infrastructure Task Force.
I hope you will consider these ideas as the committee develops an
infrastructure package this Congress.
Our coalition is eager to take advantage of this opportunity to
bring our infrastructure into the 21st Century, and we look forward to
working with you to achieve this goal.
``Four Pillars for an Infrastructure Deal,'' by the New Democrat
Coalition 21st Century Infrastructure Taskforce, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Derek Kilmer, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington
New Democrat Coalition 21st Century Infrastructure Taskforce
Four Pillars for an Infrastructure Deal
The New Democrat Coalition is determined to increase long-term
federal investments in all types of infrastructure. Supporting the
movement of people, goods, energy, and information through our
infrastructure is crucial to driving investment in our communities and
maintaining America's economic competitiveness. This investment is
vital to both the jobs created to build and maintain our
infrastructure, as well as those supported and bolstered by a strong
and healthy infrastructure system that facilitates the efficient
movement of workers, goods, services, and ideas. Modernizing our
infrastructure is important to Americans in every part of the country.
We know that infrastructure projects are consistently evaluated as one
of the best returns on government investments, and that Americans would
rather spend more time doing the things they love than sitting in
traffic wasting time and money.
As New Dems, we believe any new proposal must include new revenue,
new financing, new funding, regulatory streamlining, and encourage
life-cycle funding in innovative infrastructure projects that are built
to last.
1. Modernize America's infrastructure
The Task Force proposes modernizing revenue sources and protecting
infrastructure funds from being looted for other purposes. We support
securing dedicated, sustainable revenue to keep the Highway Trust Fund
solvent well into the future, and increasing federal investment that
ensures America's infrastructure keeps pace with growing demand. We are
considering a variety of funding options including mileage based user
fees, raising or indexing the gas tax, user fees on electric vehicles
or batteries to create parity with gasoline powered vehicles, slightly
increasing the corporate tax rate and dedicating the incremental
revenue gains towards infrastructure, and both expanded and new bond
programs.
Finally, we must think strategically and expand our focus beyond
up-front costs, using life-cycle cost analysis to account for the
operating and maintenance needs of an asset across its entire life-
cycle. Short-sighted investment will only leave Americans with an ever-
deeper backlog of deferred maintenance and costly repairs.
2. Create an infrastructure bank to finance projects
The Task Force supports investing seed funding to capitalize an
infrastructure bank that could leverage its funds for everything from
roads to water to broadband projects. The bank would be accessible to
states, localities, and regional groups, and would be able to loan them
money with favorable terms, as well as offer bond insurance.
Importantly, an infrastructure bank is self-sustaining, able to make
additional loans for new projects as money is paid back.
3. Create incentives for communities most in need of building and
maintaining their infrastructure
The Task Force supports grant programs that specifically target
areas in desperate need of revitalizing their infrastructure, including
those recovering from natural disasters, communities with higher rates
of unemployment and poverty, and rural areas.
We also support creating new avenues to fund infrastructure
projects in communities that have been left behind and in areas that
have traditionally struggled to attract infrastructure funding for
projects that have holistic community support. New Dems also believe in
working with public and private sources to encourage joint investment
into all types of infrastructure projects.
4. Encourage innovation and reform
The Task Force recognizes the importance of continued regulatory
streamlining in a way that balances expedited construction with
appropriate environmental and safety safeguards. First and foremost, we
believe the administration must work to implement the numerous
streamlining provisions already passed into law by Congress in the FAST
Act transportation bill. In addition, we support encouraging the use of
regional partnerships and public-private partnerships where
appropriate.
Furthermore, as we revitalize old infrastructure and invest in new
projects, we must encourage the adoption of new, innovative
technologies that bolster safety and efficiency to create the
infrastructure system of the future.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Andy Kim, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey
It doesn't matter where in the world you are, if you meet someone
from New Jersey that finds out you're also from our state, you'll be
greeted with the same question: which exit?
`Which exit' isn't just a question of geography, it's a statement
that our infrastructure helps define us. It's a reminder that our
transportation systems aren't just what get us from point A to point B,
but what deliver us from the present to the future.
As we look at the future, it's hard not to examine our past. Years
of neglect from Washington and increased use across our state have led
to an infrastructure system that faces massive challenges today.
A recent report from the American Road and Transportation Builders
Association showed that in my district alone, there are 44 structurally
deficient bridges and another 155 in need of repair. What does that
mean for the people I represent here in Congress? It means when they
exit the New Jersey Turnpike on Exit 5 and go north to Route 130, they
drive over three structurally deficient bridges. Just one of those
bridges, over Pompeston Creek, has nearly 68,000 trips per day.
That means tens of thousands of parents trying to get their kids to
school are doing so on a bridge that is a direct danger to their
safety. It means tens of thousands of people trying to get to work are
doing so on a bridge built when Calvin Coolidge was president. It means
tens of thousands of seniors trying to get to their medical
appointments are doing so on a reminder of Washington's failure to
improve our basic infrastructure. All of this happens over the course
of an average day in New Jersey.
For these parents, working people and seniors, the basic
infrastructure that delivers us to the future in New Jersey isn't just
the paved roads of the Turnpike and Parkway. It's not just our state
roads and city roads that connect our homes to our businesses, schools
and communities. It's our public transit, sea and airports that connect
us with the rest of the country and the rest of the world.
If we are going to build connections--from community to community,
from exit to exit, from New Jersey to the work and from the present to
the future--we must build the infrastructure to make it happen.
No family in Cinnaminson should be endangered because of a bridge
that is deemed unsafe. No business owner in Toms River should face the
challenge of roads that make it difficult to move goods and grow jobs.
No senior should miss a medical checkup because they were failed by
public transit.
We need a robust and bold infrastructure package that reflects the
bold aspirations of the people I'm proud to represent. The benefits of
bold action aren't just felt by Democrats or Republicans.
Building a new overpass over Route 539 won't just help Democrats or
Republicans, it'll help make our Joint Base more secure and a stronger
economic engine for our region. Fixing water infrastructure in
Bordentown won't just help Democrats or Republicans, it'll make sure
our children can drink from the faucet without fear. Expanding
broadband access won't just help Democrats or Republicans, it'll make
our businesses competitive in a global marketplace.
These are benefits that will be felt across our state, regardless
of your party or your exit. I'm proud to stand up for investment in
infrastructure because every exit should be one that leads to the
future. I call on this committee and this Congress to take immediate
steps to make that investment and ensure that the future is truly
bright.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Raja Krishnamoorthi, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Illinois
Opening Statement
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and all Members of the
House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, I sincerely appreciate
this Members Day opportunity to submit my testimony to your committee
as you consider legislative priorities for the 116th Congress. As you
and your staff evaluate ways to strengthen access to public
transportation, highway safety, and efficient and environmentally
friendly transportation across rail, air, and roads, I ask that you
please explore efforts to improve road safety and decrease distracted
driving in America. Specifically, I ask that you support the passage
and implementation of the bipartisan States Afforded Funding Extensions
To Oppose Driving Recklessly In Vehicular Engagements, or the SAFE TO
DRIVE Act (H.R. 2416). This legislation was introduced this Congress by
U.S. Representatives Raja Krishnamoorthi, Mike Gallagher, and Steve
Cohen.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), distracted driving was directly responsible for taking at
least 3,166 lives in 2017, including 229 teenagers, with nearly 400,000
people injured because of distraction-affected crashes.\1\ \2\ In 2010,
NHTSA reported that crashes in which at least one driver was identified
as distracted cost $39.7 billion,\3\ and with the rise smartphones and
cheap data plans this issue has worsened. Text messaging, for example,
increases the risk of a crash or near-crash by 23 times.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving
\2\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/highway-safety-grants-program
\3\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812013
\4\ https://vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2009/07/2009-571.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is evident that this problem is not going away and that current
efforts to curb distracted driving are not sufficient.
Current State
In 2015, President Obama signed into law the Fixing America's
Surface Transportation Act, or the ``FAST Act.'' It provided years-long
funding for surface transportation, allowing States and local
governments to move forward with critical transportation projects.
Specifically, the FAST Act authorized $2.7 billion in funding for the
Section 402 Highway Safety Programs and Section 405 National Priority
Safety Programs for fiscal years 2016 through 2020.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ There was not a corresponding footnote listed for reference No.
5 in the original written statement.-Ed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the Section 405 program, specific funding is allotted
through Section 405(e) for comprehensive distracted driving grants.
These federal grants are awarded to states to help create distracted
driving awareness campaigns and to better enforce distracted driving
laws. To qualify for these grants, states must meet four requirements:
Ban texting as defined by statute (``reading from or
manually entering data into a personal wireless communications device .
. . or engaging in any other form of electronic data retrieval''),
including not allowing an exemption for stopping at a traffic light.
Prohibit drivers under 18 or in a graduated driver
license (GDL) program from using a personal wireless communications
device;
Require primary enforcement of texting law and/or youth
law (primary enforcement for both required); and,
Impose a minimum fine of $25 for violation of texting law
or youth law (both required).
In 2018, 17 states applied for these grants, but only four
(Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, and Oregon) qualified for the grants.
Unspent funds are allocated to Section 402. In review of this issue, it
appears many states intended to meet the standards and hoped to
received grant funding, but were unsuccessful in securing funds. As a
result, states could be following the spirit of the law but falling
short on the technicalities. For example, instead of having a minimum
fine for a violation of a texting law, a state could have a maximum
fine, or have previously defined texting as ``SMS Messaging'', which
would not meet NHTSA's requirements.
Solution
While many states will never fully qualify for the current grants,
they should not be entirely denied the chance to educate and enforce
distracted driving awareness and prevention. The SAFE TO DRIVE Act
proposes two supplemental grants with clear language to use for
distracted driving prevention. The two proposed grants will be awarded
to states who:
Add a state law with a specific definition of texting,
which would encompass instant messaging, SMS texting, Facebook
messaging, or using WhatsApp--essentially any other form of electronic
data retrieval or electronic data communication. This would include
browsing the web.
Add a state law banning all non-navigational viewing
while driving. States would still allow for use of something like
Google Maps or Waze, but would not allow streaming from YouTube,
watching a video, or FaceTiming.
For each of these grants, up to 25% of the money already allocated
to the distracted driving grant program would be available for the new
supplemental grants.
Additionally, this legislation would require NHTSA to provide
states with a detailed analysis of why they failed to obtain a grant--
and make that analysis publicly available.
Given the grave importance of road safety and Congress's intent
under the FAST Act to help states promote distracted driving awareness,
providing additional funding opportunities through the SAFE TO DRIVE
Act will save lives.
Conclusion
Implementing the SAFE TO DRIVE Act is one small but integral step
to improving roadway safety. This bipartisan legislation, led by myself
and Representatives Mike Gallagher (R-WI) and Steve Cohen (D-TN), has
broad support in the road safety advocacy community, with endorsements
from the following organizations: Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety, Allstate, Liberty Mutual, State Farm, American Property
Casualty Insurance Association, and the National Safety Council. In the
coming months, I look forward to engaging with the committee as you
explore the reauthorization of the FAST Act and examine sustainable
solutions to strengthen our nation's infrastructure.
Prepared Statement of Hon. John B. Larson, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Connecticut
Thank you, Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves, for holding
this Member Day and for allowing me to testify. I have had the honor of
hosting Chairman DeFazio in my district along with his predecessor
Chairman Shuster on multiple occasions. The Transportation Committee
has a rich history of operating on a bipartisan manner and I am
heartened to see that tradition continuing.
As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I was delighted that
earlier this year the Chairman and Ranking Member testified in front of
our committee. The Ways and Means Committee will be responsible for
finding the revenue needed to fund these investments and we are
committed to doing just that.
Infrastructure is neither Democratic or Republican, it's American.
We have sadly allowed our infrastructure to fall into a state of
disrepair. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives the state of
our infrastructure a grade of ``D+''.
At the same time, China has been investing 8.5% of its GDP in
infrastructure. The United States invests less than 1.4%, its lowest
level on record.
Connecticut's First District is an example of a place with aging
infrastructure that is in dire need of reinvestment. Hartford is home
to the I-84/I-91 interchange, which is the largest traffic bottleneck
in Connecticut, 2nd in New England, and 14th nationally.
It was built in the 1960's to accommodate the largest department
store in New England, G. Fox and Company--which no longer exists. But
the highway system that was built around it now divides the city of
Hartford and cuts it off from its beautiful riverfront.
As we look at making infrastructure investments, we can't repeat
the mistakes of the past.
That is why I have been advocating for tunnel proposal for the I-
84/I-91 interchange in Hartford, similar to what Seattle recently did
with the Alaskan Way Viaduct project.
The I-84/I-91 tunnel proposal would:
Spur economic development
Create jobs
Reconnect neighborhoods
Recapture the riverfront
Shore up the levee system
Relieve congestion
Create multimodal transportation options
Allow the city to remain open during construction.
Create a vibrant urban core and a thriving region with
economic opportunities for all.
Simply put, the benefits of such an investment are enormous. But
our underinvestment in infrastructure is holding us back from building
important projects like this one.
It's time for Congress to pass an infrastructure bill that will
unleash transformative projects across the country like the I-84/I-91
tunnel proposal in Hartford.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member--let's go big on infrastructure.
Let's not settle for half measures.
As the American Society of Civil Engineers has said, the nation
needs to invest an additional $2 trillion in infrastructure over the
next 10 years. The need is there. My legislation from last Congress,
the America Wins Act, would raise $1.8 trillion over 10 years through a
tax on carbon pollution. I think that is the type of proposal that will
allow us to make the type of investments we need, but I am willing to
vote for anything that brings in sufficient revenue to rebuild the
country.
Let's rebuild our roads, bridges, tunnels, and transit systems.
Let's build for the future with high speed rail networks and multi-
modal infrastructure such as biking and walking. Let's invest in our
airports, levees, drinking water, sewers, ports, schools, and more.
If China can do this, so can the United States.
Specially, I urge the committee to pursue the following policies:
Let's go big. We should develop an infrastructure package
that invests at a minimum, an additional $1 trillion over current
levels over the next 10 years--and we should aspire towards $2
trillion. We need to commit the type of investment that will allow us
to take on transformational projects like the I-84/I-91 interchange in
Hartford, CT.
It's time for Congress to reassert its Article I power
over the purse. Instead of leaving all project decisions in the hands
of unelected bureaucrats, the members who know their districts and vote
to authorize billions of federal dollars should have a role in project
decision-making.
We need real revenue and real funding. That means working
with the Ways and Means Committee to pay for the investment with
ideally a 90/10 federal/nonfederal split, or 80/20 at minimum. Public-
private-partnerships have role, but they are not a substitute for real
funding.
Life-Cycle Cost: Projects like dealing with the I-84/I-91
interchange in Hartford cost billions of dollars up front, but the
long-term benefits of making a smart investment in transformational
projects far-eclipse the upfront costs. We should be looking to enact
federal policy that takes into account the long-term benefits of
infrastructure investment when considering which projects to build.
The I-84/I-91 tunnel proposal involves economic
development, a levee system, highways, transit, rail, and housing. I
encourage the committee to explore policies that allow us to do a
better job of looking at projects holistically rather than silo-ing
them off between different agencies and modes.
Multi-modal investment: we must ensure that federal
funding is being invested in all forms of transportation, including
transit, rail, biking, pedestrians, aviation, and waterways along with
roads and bridges. This will make for communities that are healthier,
vibrant, and sustainable. This includes taking into account the
realities of climate change to ensure we are investing in sustainable
and resilient infrastructure.
Finally, I would like to submit for the record documents from the
Connecticut Department of Transportation, the Connecticut Airport
Authority, and the Capitol Region Council of Governments outlining
their priorities before the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee's
jurisdiction.
Thank you for hearing my testimony. I look forward to working with
your committee on a transportation reauthorization bill and major
infrastructure legislation this year.
Connecticut Department of Transportation Recommendations on FAST Act
Reauthorization, Submitted for the Record by Hon. John B. Larson
Connecticut Department of Transportation Recommendations for House T&I
Member Request on FAST Act Reauthorization
april 25, 2019
1. Provide Flexibility to Toll Federal-aid Highways
Current Federal Policy:
In most cases, federal law (23 USC 301) restricts states from
tolling Federal aid Highways, which eliminates a potential source of
revenue. The Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot
Program (ISRRPP) was authorized under Section 1216(b) of TEA-21 to
permit up to three existing Interstate facilities to be tolled to fund
needed reconstruction on Interstate corridors that could not otherwise
be adequately maintained or functionally improved without the
collection of tolls.
Issue:
Federal law imposes restrictions on states from tolling Interstate
routes. These restrictions were put in place in 1956 when the federal
government adopted a program to create a national network of limited
access highways for national defense and to support the growth of the
American economy. Federal funds paid for 90% of the cost of the system
construction.
Over 60 years after the program was created the Interstate highway
and bridge infrastructure is aging and in need of extensive
reconstruction or replacement. Unfortunately, the Highway Trust Fund no
longer has the revenues to support a major reconstruction program. The
burden of rebuilding and modernizing the Interstate system falls
primarily on the states. The restrictions on tolling Interstate
highways need to be lifted so states can generate the revenues they
need for the massive reconstruction challenge they face.
Connecticut is currently authorized to toll under the Value Pricing
Pilot (VPP) Program which allows a limited number of states to toll on
existing toll-free highways, as long as congestion pricing is used to
manage traffic congestion. In February, Governor Lamont proposed
tolling I-84, I-91, I-95 and Route 15 (west of New Haven) and the
Connecticut General Assembly is currently debating toll authorization
legislation. The ability to apply to USDOT for approval to install
tolls on existing roads without the use of congestion pricing would
provide Connecticut greater flexibility to use tolling as a revenue
source for needed activities on all components of out highway system.
Recommendation:
Provide increased tolling flexibility to states to maximize
revenue-raising opportunities in light of federal funding challenges.
Specifically, eliminate the prohibition on tolling existing free
Interstate highways, subject to the approval of the Secretary, for
purposes of reconstruction, restoration, or rehabilitation.
Legislative Text:
Section 129(a)(F) of title 23, United States Code is amended to
read as follows--
(F) reconstruction, restoration, or rehabilitation of a toll-free
Federal-aid highway on the Interstate System and conversion of the
highway to a toll facility, subject to the approval of the Secretary;
Section 129(a) of title 23, United States Code is amended by
striking subparagraph (G) and redesignating subparagraph (H) as
subparagraph (G).
2. Allow commercialization of rest areas on the Interstate System.
Current Federal Policy:
Federal law (23 USC 111) prohibits the construction or location of
commercial establishments within a rest area on the interstate and
limits the provision of vending machines only to the state.
Issue:
Federal law prohibits states from commercializing rest areas on
interstates developed after 1956. The state of Connecticut has seven
Rest Area facilities along its highways to offer travelers a place to
pull off the highway to rest or stretch their legs. These facilities
are located in West Willington (I-84 E/B and I-84 W/B); Danbury (I-84
E/B); Middletown (I-91 S/B); North Stonington (I-95 S/B); Southington
I-84 E/B); and Wallingford (I-91 SB). Basic services and amenities are
provided, such as restrooms, parking, and vending machines, as well as
picnic and pet walking areas.
Funding for 24/7 Rest Area operations was reduced by $2M in FY
2016. As a result, the rest areas remained open with hours reduced to a
single daily shift (with hours of availability from 8:30 a.m. until
3:30 p.m.). Expanding allowable commercial activity at Connecticut's
seven rest areas would generate additional revenue for states with
limited budgets to offset maintenance, operating and capital costs at
each facility. Commuters and those traveling through Connecticut would
benefit from modern rest areas with food, coffee, gas stations, and
electric vehicle charging stations that are easy to access, similar to
the 23 service plazas ConnDOT currently owns.
Recommendation:
Amend 23 USC 111 to allow for food concessions and electric vehicle
charging stations at State-owned interstate rest areas.
Legislative Text:
Section 111(b)(2) of title 23, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as subparagraphs
(E) and (F), respectively;
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
``(D) concessions, including restaurants, food services, and
convenience stores;''.
(b) TAX REVENUES.--Section 111(b)(4) is amended 4 by adding at the
end the following: ``Notwithstanding the 5 preceding sentence, a State
may use revenues received 6 from concessions under paragraph (2)(D) to
support any 7 program authorized under this title.''
Section 111 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by
inserting at the end the following:
``(f) ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS IN REST AREAS.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), a State may--
``(A) permit electric vehicle charging stations in a rest area
along a highway on the Interstate System in the State, if such stations
or facilities will not impair the highway or interfere with the free
and safe flow of traffic thereon; and
``(B) charge a fee, or permit the charging of a fee, for the
use of such stations or facilities.
``(2) LIMITATION ON USE OF REVENUES.--Notwithstanding subsection
(b)(4), a State shall use any revenues received from fees collected
under paragraph (1) for projects eligible under this title.''.
3. Eliminate Rescissions of Contract Authority
Current Federal Policy:
Congress has used rescissions of highway contract authority as
budgetary offsets. An $856 million rescission in unobligated contract
authority was enacted in June 2017 and a $7.6 billion rescission is
scheduled for July 2020 under the FAST Act. The $7.6 billion rescission
would be derived from Federal-aid Highway Program categories other than
those that are exempt including: Highway Safety Improvement Program,
Railway-Highway Crossing Program, and sub-allocated portions of the
Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP). Non-exempt program
dollars are required to be rescinded from unobligated balances
remaining on that date on a proportional basis.
Issue:
Rescinding previously-authorized highway contract authority greatly
impedes the flexibility of state departments of transportation to
program Federal dollars and could result in hard cuts to highway
funding and seriously delay project construction.
The Connecticut share of the rescission is estimated to be $96.9
million (based on 1.28% of national total).
Recommendation:
Congress is urged to repeal the scheduled FY 2020 rescission and
avoid using rescissions of highway contract authority. However, if a
rescission is imposed, no funding categories should be exempt. States
should have the flexibility to choose among all the funding categories
to rescind so they can reduce the negative impact of the rescission on
transportation service and performance.
Legislative Text:
Section 1438 of Public Law 114-94 is repealed.
4. Emergency and Tow Vehicles
Current Federal Policy:
FAST Act, Sec. 1410, Interstate Weight Limits; 23 USC 127, Vehicle
Weight Limitations-Interstate System, subsections (m) and (r)
Issue:
The FAST Act increased the maximum gross vehicle weight allowance
of an emergency vehicle on the Interstate System (and routes that
provide reasonable access to the Interstate System) to 86,000 pounds
and exempted heavy-duty tow and recovery vehicles (regardless of
weight) from Federal Interstate weight limits. These vehicles can
create greater load effects in certain bridges than the previous legal
loads. If not appropriately rated and posted (i.e., restricted), bridge
safety, serviceability, and durability may be compromised by these
vehicles. States recognize the safety and mobility benefits of
facilitating prompt movement of emergency and tow vehicles. However,
these two new weight-limit exemptions are not subject to state permit
authority and are considered ``unrestricted'' exceptions; thus, every
state is now required to re-evaluate the load rating for all Interstate
bridges (and those that provide access to the Interstate) and post
restrictions on those bridges that cannot safely carry these new
maximum unrestricted vehicle loads.
An unintended consequence of the FAST Act is that hundreds--or
potentially thousands--of bridges in each state now must be load-rated
for the higher limits and ``posted'' with any applicable load
restrictions. Furthermore, while the provision for emergency vehicles
includes a stated maximum gross vehicle weight of 86,000 pounds and
requirements as to axle limits, the heavy-duty tow and recovery vehicle
provision does not state a weight limit and allows for the unspecified
weight of a towing and towed vehicle combined, making it impossible for
states to determine how to load rate the bridges and determine which
ones must be posted. The unexpected additional costs associated with
load-rating and posting thousands of bridges will cause financial
burdens on state and local transportation agencies. Additionally,
posting load restrictions on thousands of bridges on the nation's
Interstate System (and reasonable access roads) will likely create
confusion among drivers that could affect the safety of the traveling
public and operators of said emergency and heavy-duty tow and recovery
vehicles. If these vehicles were to be subject to state permit
authority, states would be able to designate appropriate routes,
reducing the number of posted bridges, reducing costs for state and
local governments, protecting bridges, and continuing to facilitate
prompt movement of emergency vehicles to the scenes of emergencies and
prompt clearance of disabled vehicles from roads.
Recommendation:
Rescind the FAST Act provisions concerning emergency vehicles and
heavy-duty tow vehicles (23 USC 127(m) and (r)) and allow states to
accommodate these vehicles as they have done successfully prior to the
FAST Act, through real-time permitting or other methods. Another option
is to modify 23 U.S.C. 127 (m) and (r) to allow states to apply for
FHWA authority to use a permit system for subsection (m) and subsection
(r) vehicles over 80,000 lbs gross vehicle weight.
Legislative Text:
Section 127 of title 23, United States Code is amended by repealing
subsection (m)(1) and inserting:
``(1) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
section, a State may issue special permits to overweight covered heavy-
duty tow and recovery vehicles through real-time permitting or similar
methods if such permits are issued in accordance with State law.
Section 127 of title 23, United States Code is amended by repealing
subsection (r) and inserting:
``(r) Emergency Vehicles
(1) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
section, a State may issue special permits to overweight emergency
vehicles through real-time permitting or similar methods if such
permits are issued in accordance with State law.
(2) Emergency vehicle defined.--In this subsection, the term
``emergency vehicle'' means a vehicle designed to be used under
emergency conditions--
(A) to transport personnel and equipment; and
(B) to support the suppression of fires and mitigation of
other hazardous situations.
5. Make All Categorical Exclusions Available for Use by Any Federal
Agency
Current Federal Policy:
49 USC 304
Issue:
Under current NEPA regulations, each federal agency adopts its own
list of categorical exclusions (CEs) applicable to actions that the
agency carries out. If multiple federal agency approvals are needed for
the same project, and only one agency has an applicable CE, then that
agency can issue as CE, but the other federal agencies must prepare an
EA--slowing down the process unnecessarily. An existing law allows any
USDOT agency to use any other USDOT's agency's CE, but this authority
has two important limitations: (1) applies only to ``multimodal
projects,'' which are defined as projects that require approval from
two or more USDOT agencies, and (2) it does not apply to agencies
outside the USDOT. These restrictions are unduly limiting.
Recommendation:
Amend 49 USC 304 or enact new legislation authorizing any federal
agency to apply a CE that had been adopted by any other federal agency;
this authority would make CEs interchangeable among all federal
agencies. For example, the Corps could apply a CE from FHWA's CE list.
If this change is not made, Congress should at least amend 49 USC 304
to allow any USDOT agency to use any other USDOT agency's CE,
regardless of whether the project is ``multimodal.''
Legislative Text:
Section__. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in
considering the environmental impacts of a proposed project, a
categorical exclusion designated under the implementing statutes,
regulations or procedures of a federal agency shall be adopted by other
federal agencies when reviewing suchenvironmental impacts for a
project.
6. Require Air Quality Conformity Only for the Current Air Quality
Standards
Current Federal Policy:
42 USC 7506
Issue:
As required by the Clean Air Act, the EPA periodically reviews and
updates the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), typically
by replacing an old standard with a new, more stringent standard. When
a new NAAQS is adopted, EPA issues rules for transitioning to the new
standard. In a recent court decision, South Coast v. EPA, the U.S.
Court of Appeals struck down an EPA rule that provided for the
transition from the 1997 ozone standard to the stricter 2008 standard.
The court held that even though the 1997 standard had been revoked and
replaced by a stricter standard, states and MPOs still were required to
continue making conformity determinations for the revoked 1997
standard. This decision will result in wasteful effort of demonstrating
conformity to plans for achieving an air quality standard that has
already been met.
Recommendation:
Require that when a new standard is established for a pollutant,
transportation agencies only need to conform to the most recent
standard for that pollutant.
Legislative Text:
Subsection 7506(c)(5) of title 42, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows--
``(5) Applicability.--
(A) This subsection shall apply only with respect to a
nonattainment area and each pollutant for which the area is designated
as a nonattainment area; and
(B) If a new national ambient air quality standard is
promulgated for a pollutant, corresponding to a previously issued
standard for the same pollutant, the requirements of this subsection
shall apply only to the newly promulgated standard.''
7. Adoption of Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG)
Current Federal Policy:
28 CFR 36, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public
Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities
Issue:
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) strives to ensure access
to the built environment for people with disabilities. To facilitate
this access, the US Access Board is responsible for developing and
updating design guidelines known as the ADA Accessibility Guidelines
(ADAAG), which focus primarily on facilities on sites. These guidelines
are currently used by the US Department of Justice and the US
Department of Transportation in setting enforceable standards that the
public must follow. However, sidewalks, street crossings, and other
elements in the public right-of-way can pose different challenges to
accessibility. While the current ADAAG addresses certain features
common to public sidewalks, such as curb ramps, the Access Board
determined more than a decade ago that additional guidance was
necessary to address conditions and constraints unique to public
rights-of-way.
Thus, the Access Board has been collaboratively developing
guidelines for facilities within the public rights-of-way--the Public
Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG)--which address
transportation-specific issues, including access for blind pedestrians
at street crossings, wheelchair access to on-street parking, and
various constraints posed by space limitations, roadway design
practices, slope, and terrain. Once these guidelines are adopted by the
US Department of Justice, they will become enforceable standards under
Title II of the ADA. Unfortunately, since the current ``officially
adopted'' guidance is still the ADAAG, which is intended more for
vertical than horizontal construction, there has been uncertainty in
transportation agencies regarding what is or is not acceptable. In
addition, several agencies are being required, as the result of
litigation, to implement suboptimal accessibility solutions that were
truly intended for buildings, not transportation facilities. Adoption
of the PROWAG would provide transportation agencies with solid,
researched solutions for accessibility within their transportation
corridors.
Recommendation:
Official adoption of the Public Rights of Way Accessibility
Guidelines (PROWAG) is needed to ensure consistency across the country
in the application of accessibility features within the streetscape.
Adoption would also ensure that the horizontal construction guidelines
are used by transportation agencies instead of the vertical
construction guidelines.
Legislative Text:
Section__.ADOPTION OF PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY ACCESSIBILITY
GUIDELINES.--
(a) The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of
Transportation shall adopt the Public Rights of Way Accessibility
Guidelines developed by the U.S. Access Board.
(b) The guidelines adopted under subsection (a) shall become
enforceable standards under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.
8. Minimum Condition Levels for National Highway System (NHS) Bridges
and Pavements Could Encourage a Worst-First Asset Management Approach
Current Federal Policy:
23 USC Section 119, National Highway Performance Program
23 CFR Section 515, Asset Management Plans
Issue:
Current federal law requires states utilize and document an asset
management plan for the NHS. State DOTs must also manage the
transportation system well beyond the designated NHS. One of the
principles of asset management is to focus on reducing life-cycle
costs, not on addressing the ``worst first'' for the transportation
network. FHWA's current guidance states that a successful asset
management program ``must have moved away from a `worst first'
investment strategy, and instead have adopted investment principles
that are based on life cycle costing and incorporate life-cycle
planning principles.'' Current federal law set minimum condition levels
for NHS bridges in poor condition and also requires USDOT to establish
a minimum condition level for Interstate System pavement. If the
minimum conditions are not met, the State would be required to redirect
certain funds to improve those conditions until the minimum conditions
are met.
A core principle of transportation asset management is to provide
the right treatment at the right time in the life cycle of the asset.
This may mean the option not to treat the worst item or segment first
may be the most cost effective for the system. State DOTs are concerned
that the minimum condition requirements for NHS bridges and Interstate
System pavement may force state DOTs into adopting a worst-first
approach to asset management.
Recommendation:
Eliminate the minimum condition requirements written into
law for both NHS bridges and Interstate System pavement.
If the minimum condition requirements are not eliminated,
do not use the achievement of meeting the minimum condition
requirements for NHS bridges or Interstate System pavement as the basis
for apportioning or allocating federal funds among state DOTs.
Ensure that the minimum condition requirements for NHS
bridges and Interstate System pavement do not force a state DOT to
adopt a worst first approach to asset management.
Legislative Text:
Section 119 of title 23, United States Code is amended by striking
subsection (f)
9. Expand Eligibilities for the Surface Transportation Block Grant
Program Set-aside for Transportation Alternatives and Make State DOTs
Eligible Recipients under this Program
Current Federal Policy:
23 U.S.C. 133(h), 23 USC 206
Issue:
Although state DOTs use significant state resources to administer
the Surface Transportation Block Grant Transportation (STBGP) set-aside
for Transportation Alternatives (TA), state DOTs are not eligible
recipients of TA funding. Similar programs, such as the Recreational
Trails Program, allow states to be reimbursed for costs incurred in
administering the program, up to seven percent of the apportionment
made to the state each year (23 USC 206(d)(2)(H)), and one percent of
Recreational Trails Program monies are returned to USDOT each year to
administer the program (23 USC 133(h)(5)(B)). Thus, it is important
that state DOTs be allowed to use a portion of the TA program funds for
expenses associated with administering these funds.
In addition, the current prohibition of state DOT sponsorship/
eligibility for TA funds hinders fund obligation as local government
sponsors are often reluctant to use federal funding for small projects.
As such, state DOTs should be able to sponsor local projects and
receive project grants, at the request of the local agency.
Also, TA funding is available only for infrastructure related and
environmental projects. The Recreational Trails Program, however,
includes eligibility for maintenance of existing trails and educational
programs to promote safety and environmental protection.
Recommendations:
State DOTs should be reimbursed for eligible costs
incurred in administering the TA program, up to seven percent of the
apportionment made to the state each year.
Restore the authority for states to receive TA funding
and administer TA projects, at the request of a local agency.
Allow state DOTs to transfer STBGP set-aside funding for
Transportation Alternatives suballocated for locally-selected projects
each year if the locality fails to spend their obligation authority.
Allow TA funds to be used for non-infrastructure programs
that focus on preservation, safety, public education, enforcement, and/
or public outreach.
Legislative Text:
Section 133(h) of title 23, United States Code is amended by adding
at the end a new paragraph:
(8) Uses of funds.--Permissible uses of funds apportioned to a
State for a fiscal year to carry out this section shall include payment
of costs to the State incurred in administering the program in an
amount not to exceed 7 percent of the apportionment made to the State
for the fiscal year.
Section 133(b) of title 23, United States Code is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraphs:
(16) The maintenance and restoration of existing recreational
trails.
(17) The development and dissemination of publications and
operation of educational programs to promote safety and environmental
protection, (as those objectives relate to one or more of the use of
recreational trails, supporting non-law enforcement trail safety and
trail use monitoring patrol programs, and providing trail-related
training).
10. Allow Conformity and Fiscal Constraint to be Determined Post-NEPA,
Prior to Construction
Current Federal Policy:
42 USC 7506(c)(2)(E), 40 CFR 93.108, 23 CFR Part 771 and Part 450
Issue:
For projects located in air quality nonattainment and maintenance
areas, FHWA must make an air quality conformity determination (i.e., a
finding that the project conforms to the state's plan for achieving
federal air quality standards per 42 USC 7506(c)). The conformity
determination, in turn, requires a finding that the project is include
in a ``fiscally constrained'' metropolitan transportation plan and
transportation improvement program (TIP). 40 CFR 93.108. These findings
are required prior to completion of the NEPA process under current EPA
and FHWA regulations and guidance. This requirement creates a Catch-22
for many large projects: without NEPA approval, it is difficult to
confirm funding sources, but the NEPA process cannot be completed until
funding sources are identified. The timing of the fiscal constraint
determination can be especially challenging for large P3 projects and
other innovative-finance projects, where funding and financing plans
are not (and cannot be) resolved until after the NEPA process is
complete.
Recommendation:
Allow flexibility to complete the NEPA process with approval
conditioned on making an air quality conformity and fiscal constraint
determination before proceeding to construction. This approach would
not change any substantive requirements related to fiscal constraint
and project level conformity, it merely changes the timing of making
these determinations. This change would be implemented with legislation
directing FHWA and FTA to update their joint environmental and planning
regulations (23 CFR Part 771 and Part 450), and directing EPA to make a
corresponding change to its conformity regulations.
Legislative Text:
Section 7506(c)(3) of title 42, United States Code is amended by
adding at the end:
(F) The conformity determinations required by this section shall
be coordinated with the transportation planning process under sections
134 and 135 of Title 23, and with the environmental review process
required under the National Environmental Policy Act and other
applicable laws, in accordance with the following requirements:
(i) The Department of Transportation shall make its conformity
determination for a transportation project prior to initiation of
construction of the project.
(ii) The Department of Transportation shall ensure that the
transportation project is included in the plan and program, as
applicable, before the Department of Transportation makes its
conformity determination for the project.
(iii) The Department of Transportation shall ensure that any
environmental document prepared for the projectunder the National
Environmental Policy Act discloses the need for a transportation
conformity determination and evaluates consistency with conformity
requirements, and shall condition any approval issued by the Department
in the environmental review process on satisfying conformity
requirements prior to construction.
11. Delegation of Preventive Maintenance Projects
Current Federal Policy:
23 USC 116, Maintenance, subsection (e)
Issue:
Under 23 USC 116(e), a state may use Federal-aid highway funds for
a preventive maintenance project ``if the state demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Secretary that the activity is a cost-effective
means of extending the useful life of a Federal-aid highway.'' Because
this is a statutory requirement, FHWA cannot currently assign to states
the authority to determine that a preventive maintenance project
qualifies for federal reimbursement.
Recommendation:
This provision should be amended to allow states to determine that
a preventive maintenance project meets the applicable criteria for
federal reimbursement. This change would require an amendment to 23 USC
116(e).
Legislative Text:
Section 116 of title 23, United States Code is amended by striking
subsection (e) and inserting:
(e) Preventive Maintenance.--
(1) A preventive maintenance activity shall be eligible for
Federal assistance under this title if the State demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Secretary that the activity is a cost-effective
means of extending the useful life of a Federal-aid highway; and
(2) Upon request of a State, and subject to the provisions of
this subsection, the Secretary shall enter into a written agreement
with the State assigning the full responsibility of the Secretary to
the State for granting any approvals required under paragraph (1).
12. Delegation of Authorization for Right-of-Way Acquisition
Current Federal Policy:
23 USC 106, Project Approval and Oversight
Issue:
Currently, there is no specific authorization in 23 USC 106 (or
elsewhere in Title 23) for states to assume FHWA's responsibilities for
authorizing federally funded right-of-way acquisitions. In addition,
FHWA's right-of-way regulations state that ``as a condition of Federal
funding under Title 23, the grantee shall obtain FHWA authorization in
writing or electronically before proceeding with any real property
acquisition using Title 23 funds, including early acquisitions under
Sec. 710.501(e) and hardship acquisition and protective buying under
Sec. 710.503.''
Recommendation:
New legislative authority should be established for states to
voluntarily assume some or all of FHWA's responsibilities for approval
of right-of-way acquisitions, subject to the same legal protections
that currently apply to the right-of-way acquisition process. This
would require an amendment to 23 USC 106.
Legislative Text:
Section 106(c) of title 23, United States Code is amended by adding
at the end:
(5) Right of Way Acquisition.--For projects under this title, the
State may assume the responsibilities of the Secretary under this title
for the acquisition of rights-of-way under section 107 unless the
Secretary determines that the assumption is not appropriate.
13. Non-infrastructure Eligibilities under the Highway Safety
Improvement Program
Current Federal Policy:
Highway Safety Improvement Program funds are restricted to use on
specific activities and cannot be used for education, enforcement,
safety research, or emergency medical service safety programs.
Issue:
The FAST Act (section 1113) amended 23 USC 148 to revise the
definitions of what is a Highway Safety Improvement Project. The change
effectively restricts HSIP eligibility to only 28 strategies,
activities or projects listed in the legislation, eliminating the
ability to use HSIP funds for public awareness and education efforts,
infrastructure and infrastructure-related equipment to support
emergency services, and enforcement of traffic safety laws that are
identified in the states' Strategic Highway Safety Plans. SAFETEA-LU
and MAP-21 had provided the flexibility to deploy additional
enforcement to problem areas and help reverse a trend of increasing
crashes on specific highway segments. The changes are inconsistent with
the intent of a state's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) which is a
multidisciplinary approach to reducing highway fatalities and serious
injuries on all public roads. The lack of flexibility in safety project
selection in the HSIP program, particularly non-infrastructure related
activities, stifles innovative safety improvements that lead to crash
reductions and reduced highway fatalities.
Recommendations:
Restore flexibility for states to use a portion of HSIP funds for
non-infrastructure safety programs and for safety research.
Legislative Text:
Section 148 of title 23, United States Code is amended in
subsection (e) by adding the following:
``(3) FLEXIBLE FUNDING FOR SAFETY PROJECTS UNDER ANY OTHER
SECTION.--
``(A) IN GENERAL.--To further the implementation of a State
strategic highway safety plan, a State may use not more than 25 percent
of the amounts apportioned to the State under section 104(b)(3) for a
fiscal year to carry out safety projects under any other section as
provided in the State strategic highway safety plan.
``(B) OTHER TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY SAFETY PLANS.--Nothing in
this paragraph requires a State to revise any State process, plan, or
program in effect on the date of enactment of this paragraph.''.
14. Establish Project Delivery Innovation Pilot Program
Current Federal Policy:
New Section in 23 USC Chapter 1
Issue:
The NEPA process requires compliance with a host of other federal
environmental laws, each of which is implemented by separate
regulations, under the jurisdiction of different agencies. Streamlining
the NEPA process alone will not be successful without also streamlining
compliance with the other federal laws that also must be addressed as
part of the same process. Yet efforts to amend or improve those other
laws have not been successful, at least to date. Because other federal
environmental laws are subject to complex and prescriptive regulations,
agencies are highly restricted in their ability even to consider
innovative practices that could yield ``win-win'' solutions for
infrastructure development and the environment. One possible solution
is to borrow from the ``SEP-15'' model used by FHWA--an experimental
program that allows the agency to waive certain requirements on a
project-specific basis as a way to test innovative approaches, which
can inform future changes to the agencies regulations. This same
flexibility should be provided to other agencies.
Recommendation:
Establish a pilot program, modeled on SEP-15, that would allow
USDOT modal administrations and federal environmental agencies to waive
or otherwise modify their own requirements to develop innovative
practices to streamline project delivery and achieve positive
environmental outcomes. The flexibility provided under this framework
would include appropriate safeguards--including interagency
consultation and public notice and involvement--to ensure adherence to
federal environmental laws, regulations, and policies. For example, all
federal agencies required to consult on a project would need to agree
to the inclusion of the project in the pilot program, consulting
resource agencies would need to determine that equal or improved
environmental outcomes would be achieved, and no agency would be
allowed to override or modify requirements that fall within another
agency's authority.
Legislative Text:
Sec. __. Pilot program on use of innovative practices for
environmental reviews
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
(1) The environmental review process for transportation
infrastructure projects is complex and inefficient, resulting in delays
and increased costs of delivery of needed improvements to our
transportation system.
(2) True innovation in the environmental review process is
difficult because the process is governed by many distinct requirement
under dozens of federal laws and regulations.
(3) It is in the national interest to promote truly innovative
approaches that have the potential to yield positive environmental and
transportation outcomes more quickly and efficiently, with greater
transparency and responsiveness to all stakeholders.
(b) Definitions.--
(1) ``Affected agency'' shall mean the federal agency or
agencies, other than the United States Department of Transportation,
with an approval or consultation role that would be affected if the
flexibilities in subsection (d) are used.
(c) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a pilot program
to promote the use of innovative practices in carrying out
environmental reviews for transportation projects (referred to in this
section as the `program'), including but not limited to innovative
practices that:
(1) integrate environmental planning or other techniques
involving consideration of multiple resources on a watershed or
ecosystem scale;
(2) enhance environmental mitigation and enhancement measures
that will result in a substantial improvement over existing conditions
in an ecosystem or watershed;
(3) use innovative technologies that enable more effective
public participation in decision-making, including use of
visualization, animation, and other advanced methods for depicting
alternatives; and
(4) focus on environmental and transportation outcomes rather
than processes.
(d) Flexibilities.--Under the program, the Secretary, in
concurrence with the affected agency, would be authorized to waive,
solely for purposes of a specific project or proposal in the program,
requirements under any federal law, regulation or order if the
Secretary and the affected agency find that waiving the requirement is
reasonably expected to:
(1) promote development of innovative practices for the
environmental review process, as outlined in subsection (c);
(2) enable the more efficient delivery of needed improvements to
the transportation system; and
(3) result in equal or better environmental outcomes.
(d) Eligibility.--The Secretary may select not more than 15
projects or proposals to participate in the program. Eligible projects
or proposals include any project as defined in section 139(a)(6) of
title 23 of the United States Code, if the environmental review process
has not yet been initiated for that project, and any proposal to meet
the expectations in section (d) related to eligible projects.
(e) Eligible Applicants.--Eligible applicants include any State
and any project sponsor as defined in section 139(a)(7) of title 23 of
the United States Code. Eligible applicants for a single project or
proposal may submit an application jointly.
(f) Application Process. The Secretary and the affected agency
shall be jointly responsible for reviewing and approving applications
for participation in the program, as set forth in this subsection.
(1) The applicant shall submit a written application, in a form
prescribed by the Secretary, requesting use of one or more innovative
practices in the environmental review process for the project or
proposal andidentifying any flexibilities needed to carry out those
innovative practices.
(2) If the Secretary recommends approval of the application, the
Secretary shall submit a written recommendation to the affected agency
for review. The Secretary's recommendation may include modifications to
the applicant's proposal.
(3) The affected agency shall approve or deny the application,
or approve the application with conditions.
(4) Upon the final approval decision by the Secretary and
affected agency, the Secretary shall communicate the decision in
writing to the project sponsor, the affected State (if not the project
sponsor), and each affected agency, and shall post the decision on the
agency's public website, and publish the decision in the Federal
Register. The Secretary's notice shall identify, with specificity, each
federal requirement that has been waived or otherwise modified. This
decision shall be final and is not subject to judicial review.
(g) Implementation. Upon publication of the decision in the
Federal Register pursuant to subsection (f)(4), the Secretary may
initiate the proposal or the environmental review process for the
project. Each federal agency with responsibility for review,
consultation, approval, or other role in the environmental review
process for the project or proposal shall proceed in accordance with
the decision.
(h) Termination. The Secretary or any affected agency may
terminate the participation of a project in the program if the
Secretary or affected agency determine that the conditions for
participation (as set forth in the application approval decision) have
not been met, and that termination is in the public interest. Before
terminating a project's participation in the program, the Secretary
shall first give the project sponsor (and the State, if the State is
not the sponsor) written notice and a period of at least 30 days to
address the concerns.
(i) Reporting. The Secretary, in consultation with the affected
agency, shall report annually to the [insert relevant committees] on
each project or proposal participating in the program. The annual
report shall identify each project or proposal, provide a status update
on the environmental review process for that project or proposal, and
summarize any lessons learned from the use of innovative practices
authorized under the pilot program.
Contact:
Pam Sucato
Director, Government Affairs & Policy Coordination
Connecticut Department of Transportation
Letter of April 29, 2019, from Kevin A. Dillon, A.A.E., Executive
Director, Connecticut Airport Authority, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. John B. Larson
April 29, 2019.
The Honorable Peter DeFazio,
Chair,
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Washington, DC.
The Honorable Sam Graves,
Ranking Member,
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves,
On behalf of the Connecticut Airport Authority (CAA), which owns
and operates the second-largest airport in New England, Bradley
International Airport, I urge you to address the critical
infrastructure needs at U.S. airports as part of any comprehensive
infrastructure bill considered by the committee. I believe this can be
accomplished by modernizing the outdated federal cap on the Passenger
Facility Charge (PFC) user fee, as well as increasing funding levels
for federal grants available through the Airport Improvement Program
(AIP).
In 2018, Bradley Airport completed its fifth consecutive year of
passenger growth, and nearly 7 million passengers use our airport
annually. Since the CAA formally took control of Bradley and five of
Connecticut's general aviation airports in 2013, we have reestablished
west coast service, reestablished transatlantic service, and connected
the state to other, major business hubs across the country. We have
added two new, ultra-low-cost carriers, opened a new airport lounge and
various other concessions, and received two, separate bond upgrades for
our outstanding airport revenue bonds. We were also ranked as the
third-best airport in the country in Conde Nast Traveler's 2018
Readers' Choice Awards. These achievements have echoed throughout the
region, facilitating economic growth in Connecticut and greater New
England.
America's airport system is a fundamental component of our nation's
transportation infrastructure. In 2017, 1.8 billion passengers and 31.7
million metric tons of cargo traveled through U.S. airports. With a
national economic impact of $1.4 trillion, airports contribute more
than seven percent to the U.S. gross domestic product and support over
11.5 million jobs around the country. Bradley International Airport
provides a massive contribution to the greater New England economy with
a total economic impact of $2.6 billion, including supporting 20,604
jobs in the State of Connecticut alone.
Airport Council International-North America's most recent
infrastructure needs study shows that America's airports require more
than $128 billion in infrastructure upgrades over a five-year period,
with over 50 percent of those needs coming within airport terminals.
That estimate of more than $25 billion in annual infrastructure needs
is more than three times the amount that airports receive in
traditional AIP grants and PFC revenue every year.
Despite the federal government restricting our funding capabilities
through the outdated PFC cap, we have put forward an aggressive,
ambitious capital plan to ensure that our passengers have the airport
they deserve now and in the future. At Bradley International Airport,
we recently completed a 20-year master plan update that calls for $1.4
billion of investments at the airport. This plan calls for major
improvements, including approximately $500 million for a new terminal
and $210 million for a new ground transportation center. Funding these
infrastructure needs will be challenging. The PFC user fee has lost
significant purchasing power since the federal cap was last adjusted
nearly 20 years ago, and we are experiencing those impacts at our
airport as we seek to improve our facility, attract new air service,
and remain a strong economic driver in our region.
In the attached document, you can see how the outdated PFC cap
threatens the CAA with outrageous and unnecessary interest costs over
the next six years alone. If we were to bond all of our PFC-eligible
projects over the next six years under an increased $8.50 PFC cap, we
would save $110 million in interest costs as compared to a full bonding
scenario under the current $4.50 cap. Maintaining the federal PFC cap
at its current levels is simply not a sustainable path forward for the
U.S. airport system. Considering the enormous funding gap and
construction cost inflation, it is critical that we provide airports
with the tools that they need to self-finance their infrastructure
projects.
Thank you for your consideration of these requests. We look forward
to working with you on an infrastructure bill that addresses the needs
of Bradley International Airport and airports across the country.
Sincerely,
Kevin A. Dillon, A.A.E.,
Executive Director, Connecticut Airport Authority.
Bradley International Airport
PFC Projects 2019-2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other
Project Category Total PFC Share CAA Funding Funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obstruction Removal................................. $3,250,000 $812,500 $0 $2,437,500
Snow Removal Equipment.............................. $5,500,000 $5,500,000 $0 $0
Deicing Equipment................................... $625,000 $625,000 $0 $0
Runway Friction Measuring Equipment................. $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0
Terminal A Viaduct Repair........................... $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $0 $0
Taxiway Rehabilitation Projects..................... $50,300,000 $12,312,500 $1,050,000 $36,937,500
Airfield Signage Replacement and Circuitry Study.... $1,900,000 $475,000 $0 $1,425,000
Lower Level Terminal Renovation..................... $16,700,000 $15,000,000 $1,700,000 $0
Deicing Facility Expansion.......................... $10,000,000 $2,500,000 $0 $7,500,000
Terminal Expansion.................................. $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $20,000,000 $0
Federal Inspection Services Facility Construction... $140,000,000 $104,000,000 $11,000,000 $25,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. $332,525,000 $225,475,000 $33,750,000 $73,300,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario 1: Build and Bond Full $225,475,000 @ 4.1% and Current $4.50
PFC
30 Year Payoff
$13.2M Average Annual Payment
Interest = $170.5M Over Financing Term
Interest as % of Funds = 43.1%
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Scenario 2: Build and Bond Full $225,475,000 @ 4.1% and $8.50 PFC
11.2 Year Payoff
$25.5M Average Annual Payment
Interest = $60.4M Over Financing Term
Interest as % of Funds = 21.1%
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Federal Priorities of the Capitol Region Council of Governments
(Connecticut), Submitted for the Record by Hon. John D. Larson
Federal Priorities of the Capitol Region Council of Governments
(Connecticut):
Dedicate additional revenue to ensure Highway Trust Fund
solvency. Near-term solvency can be achieved by increasing and indexing
existing federal fuel taxes. This will provide a window to identify,
study, and implement a long-term solution such as a mile-based user
fee.
Increase funding for the Surface Transportation Block
Grant Program (STBGP) and increase the portion of STBGP provided to
local areas through their MPO for distribution. STBGP is the most
direct way to provide federal funding for local priorities and
increasing the portion of the program provided for this purpose will
further enhance local authority.
Directly allocate STBGP and Transportation Alternatives
funds to MPOs of all sizes, to enhance local authority to prioritize
spending through regional planning organizations.
Increase authority of and funding for non-metropolitan
planning organizations to incentivize rural planning and urban-rural
collaboration. Encouraging more states to create and support RTPOs
would help rural communities compete economically.
Support multimodal investments and provide flexibility in
the types of projects federal funding supports. Transit, rail, bike and
pedestrian, safety, and other similar projects should remain federal
priorities. Flexible funding allows communities to prioritize their
federal funding in a manner that reflects local needs.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Andy Levin, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan
Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves: thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony as you begin crafting infrastructure
legislation for America's future. On behalf of Michigan's Ninth
Congressional District, I would like to highlight the need for
investments in wastewater infrastructure projects that protect our
water sources and roads; zero-net energy buildings; and electric
vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure.
Wastewater infrastructure projects
In 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that
approximately $655 billion will be needed over a twenty-year period to
meet our nation's drinking water and wastewater infrastructure
needs.\1\ Federal investment would help meet these needs, enable state
and local governments to meet Clean Water Act treatment requirements,
and, importantly, directly affect the integrity of our roads. According
to the EPA, sanitary sewer overflows cost U.S. communities billions of
dollars in clean-up and repair to damaged infrastructure, including
roads.\2\ This damage has tremendous implications for Michiganders:
Michigan motorists pay $14.1 billion every year in the forms of
additional vehicle operating costs, congestion-related delays, and
traffic crashes.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), (2017), Drinking
Water and Infrastructure, https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/687261.pdf
\2\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (2003), Why control
sanitary sewer overflows, https:/www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/
sso_casestudy_control.pdf
\3\ TRIP. (2019), Modernizing Michigan's Transportation System,
http://www.tripnet.org/docs/
MI_Progress_and_Challenges_TRIP_Report_March_2019.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Michigan's Ninth District, the Chapaton Retention Basin is
emblematic of the long-overdue need to invest in wastewater
infrastructure to protect our water sources and roads. Chapaton is a
28-million-gallon Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Facility. It opened in
1968 and currently services Interstate 94 (I-94), businesses, and
approximately 92,000 residents in Eastpointe, St. Clair Shores, and
Roseville, Michigan. The Basin protects residents by moving storm water
out of the community and into nearby Lake St. Clair, thereby preventing
flooding. It also protects the environment. Storm water and sanitary
sewage flow are held in the Basin during heavy rains and then re-
diverted to sewage treatment. In the absence of much-needed expansion
to this CSO, however, preventable sewage overflows have led to water
quality problems that include E. coli pollution and have hastened the
deterioration of essential roadways like I-94.
By investing in wastewater infrastructure projects, including
through the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program, we
will simultaneously better protect our environment and forestall damage
to critical roadways, thereby enhancing motorists' safety and helping
drivers avoid unexpected costs.
Zero-net energy buildings
In its 2015 Quadrennial Technology Review, the U.S. Department of
Energy found that the buildings sector accounts for about 76 percent of
electricity use and 40 percent of all U.S. primary energy use and
associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.\4\ The report also found
that the implementation of the best available energy efficiency
technologies in the nation's current building stock would reduce
commercial energy consumption by 46 percent and residential consumption
by 50 percent.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Department of Energy, (2015), An assessment of energy
technologies and research opportunities, Quadrennial Technology Review,
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-
chapter5.pdf
\5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a former clean energy entrepreneur, I have seen first-hand the
potential to address our climate crisis through solutions that produce
more efficient commercial and residential buildings while also spurring
cost savings and job growth. I believe we must move much faster with
respect to the efficiency of both current and new building
infrastructure, which is why I support requiring that all new building
be zero-net energy--i.e., new buildings should produce as much energy
as they consume. To achieve this rapidly, we must invest in grant
programs that establish or expand financing for energy efficiency
retrofit projects. Such investments will help us reduce our carbon
footprint, create jobs, and move towards a cleaner, more robust
economy.
EV charging infrastructure
As our nation's transportation sector has become increasingly
responsible for overall greenhouse gas emissions, plug-in EVs--which
have 54 percent lower lifetime carbon pollution than conventional
vehicles--can help us reduce emissions and move us closer to climate
sustainability.\6\ \7\ EV charging needs will rise from 6 billion kWh
in 2020 to 53 billion kWh in 2030, and the number of chargers needed is
estimated to rise from 2 million in 2020 to 13 million in 2030.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Inventory of US
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2018-01/documents/2018_complete_report.pdf
\7\ NRDC, Electric Vehicles Can Dramatically Reduce Carbon
Pollution from Transportation and Improve Air Quality, https://
www.nrdc.org/experts/luke-tonachel/study-electric-vehicles-can-
dramatically-reduce-carbon-pollution
\8\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To encourage our country's needed shift to EVs, I have proposed the
establishment of a network of EV charging stations along the National
Highway System. I believe we need to lead the world in protecting our
environment, and that must include improving EV consumer experiences so
that we may end our dependence on conventional vehicles. ``Range
anxiety,'' charge times, and charging costs currently preclude the
paradigm shift necessary for a sustainable automotive future. As such,
I urge you to consider robust investments to make a national network of
EV chargers a reality.
As Congress begins considering legislation to rehabilitate our
nation's infrastructure, I respectfully request that the Committee bear
these three priorities in mind when determining an appropriate course
of action that promotes sustainability for our communities and our
environment.
Again, I thank you for your consideration and look forward to
working with you.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel Lipinski, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Illinois
Thank you Chairman DeFazio for holding this important member day to
get members' input on their infrastructure priorities. I appreciate the
opportunity for T&I members to work with the Committee on their
priorities. While I have many, I wanted to highlight one today, rail
crossing safety and the Section 130 program. My Congressional district,
Illinois' 3rd, has the most rail grade crossings of any district in the
Country. I hear frequently from constituents and railroads about the
need to improve the safety of our rail crossings. Indeed, in 2018, 270
people were killed and 819 people were injured in rail crossing
incidents. That's why the Section 130 Grade Crossing Safety Program,
which was enacted by Congress in 1987, is so important. Section 130 has
been a successful 30 year effort to protect motorists and prevent grade
crossing accidents. Because of the Section 130 program, fatalities and
injuries have significantly decreased. However, we need to continue to
make progress as one death is one too many.
As Chairman of the Rail, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials
Subcommittee this Congress, I look forward to working with my
colleagues on the subcommittee and full Committee to modernize the
program in the next surface reauthorization so that States can use the
latest technologies at grade crossings, provide meaningful incentives
to localities to consolidate crossings and grade separate those
crossings that provide mobility for first responders and reduce
congestion associated with blocked crossings.
Letter of March 25, 2019, from the House of Representatives Sustainable
Energy and Environment Coalition, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Alan
S. Lowenthal, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
March 25, 2019.
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker,
House of Representatives, 1236 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
The Honorable Steny H. Hoyer,
Majority Leader,
House of Representatives, 1705 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio,
Chairman,
Comittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2134 Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr.,
Chairman,
Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2107 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Chairman DeFazio, and
Chairman Pallone:
We write to express our strong support for House Leadership to
pursue a broad-reaching, sustainable infrastructure plan that includes
bold policies to address climate change. As a caucus focused on
sustainable energy and environmental policy, the members of SEEC
believe we need to act immediately to stem the impacts of climate
change. The needs of our nation's surface transportation infrastructure
are widely and rightfully recognized; however, our constituents require
a comprehensive infrastructure package that goes beyond roads and
bridges, including ports, water systems, grid modernization, and
broadband. In each of these areas, significant work can be done to
reduce climate pollution. Infrastructure designed to improve climate
resilience while supporting clean energy technologies will promote
public health, safety, and economic development, and protect taxpayers'
investments.
The most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) warns that we have barely more than a decade to take
serious action on climate change if we are to prevent its most
catastrophic impacts. While climate adaptation is critical, these
problems will continue to persist and worsen without mitigation
measures. Experts advise that improvements in energy efficiency,
policies that support electrification, and investments to modernize our
grid to encourage the deployment of more clean energy resources are
necessary to prevent a global temperature increase that threatens all
communities. All of this can be included under an energy title of a
smart, sustainable infrastructure plan. In addition to helping prevent
an untenable climate crisis, these policies will spur job growth and
establish American global leadership in the new clean energy economy.
Recent natural disasters prove that Americans are already
experiencing the consequences of climate change. Many communities
across the country are in the process of rebuilding from extreme
weather events. These tragedies serve as a reminder that mitigation
alone will not be enough. Any infrastructure package must also enhance
infrastructure resilience in ways that prioritize the health, well-
being, and physical safety of local communities. New infrastructure
programs should prioritize investments that result in a reduction of
climate pollution. To do so, we encourage a broad definition of
infrastructure that includes the preservation and utilization of
natural infrastructure--ecosystems that will help better protect
communities from drought, extreme storms, and flooding while also
serving as carbon sinks to remove greenhouse gas pollution from the
atmosphere. We encourage federal agencies to coordinate the development
of tools and guidance for climate smart infrastructure investment. We
also encourage policies that will prioritize built infrastructure
designed to withstand higher floods, stronger storms, and other hazards
of extreme weather events exacerbated by climate change.
With this letter we have included an outline of policy areas we
believe are critical components of proactive climate-focused
infrastructure legislation. This is by no means a comprehensive list.
We also encourage review of SEEC's Sustainable Infrastructure Proposal,
which lays out ideas and foundational principles for a sustainable
plan, and specific policy proposals across many infrastructure
categories. Finally, we urge consultation with relevant committees in
drafting any infrastructure bill.
Thank you for your time and attention to this critical issue. We
look forward to working with you on the development of an ambitious
infrastructure package this year.
Sincerely,
Alan S. Lowenthal,
Member of Congress.
Paul D. Tonko,
Member of Congress.
Doris O. Matsui,
Member of Congress.
Chillie Pingree,
Member of Congress.
A. Donald McEachin,
Member of Congress.
John P. Sarbanes,
Member of Congress.
Suzan K. DelBene,
Member of Congress.
Harley Rouda,
Member of Congress.
Suzanne Bonamici,
Member of Congress.
Steve Cohen,
Member of Congress.
Susan Wild,
Member of Congress.
Ilhan Omar,
Member of Congress.
Pramila Jayapal,
Member of Congress.
Salud Carbajal,
Member of Congress.
Joe Neguse,
Member of Congress.
Joseph D. Morelle,
Member of Congress.
Susan A. Davis,
Member of Congress.
Kim Schrier,
Member of Congress.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz,
Member of Congress.
Mark DeSaulnier,
Member of Congress.
Ted W. Lieu,
Member of Congress.
Gilbert R. Cisneros, Jr.,
Member of Congress.
David E. Price,
Member of Congress.
Gerald E. Connolly,
Member of Congress.
Matt Cartwright,
Member of Congress.
Mike Quigley,
Member of Congress.
Judy Chu,
Member of Congress.
Scott H. Peters,
Member of Congress.
Lloyd Doggett,
Member of Congress.
Jerry McNerney,
Member of Congress.
Peter Welch,
Member of Congress.
James R. Langevin,
Member of Congress.
Jared Huffman,
Member of Congress.
Raul M. Grijalva,
Member of Congress.
Darren Soto,
Member of Congress.
Mark Pocan,
Member of Congress.
Derek Kilmer,
Member of Congress.
Debra A. Haaland,
Member of Congress.
Robert C. Scott,
Member of Congress.
Donald S. Beyer, Jr.,
Member of Congress.
Nanette Diaz Barragan,
Member of Congress.
James P. McGovern,
Member of Congress.
Ann McLane Kuster,
Member of Congress.
Raja Krishnamoorthi,
Member of Congress.
Climate Infrastructure Policies
Require Planning for Climate Impacts
Infrastructure projects often have multi-decade
lifespans. Proper consideration of climate projections is necessary in
order to reduce future disaster costs and protect taxpayers'
investments. It is critical that vulnerable communities, coastal and
otherwise, have continued access to current climate projections and
technologies to mitigate potential risk.
Climate risk assessments should influence project design,
construction, and long-term maintenance decisions. This may include
projects' location, elevation, use of construction materials,
repurposing of existing infrastructure, and inclusion of natural
infrastructure and stormwater management features. Federal agencies
should establish an interagency council for developing, recommending,
and coordinating actions, guidelines, and tools for incorporating
climate risk into its processes for infrastructure investments.
Infrastructure projects seeking federal funding should be
required to develop a greenhouse gas emissions ``score'' that estimates
the downstream and upstream emissions that will result or change due to
the proposed project. Proposals that are more adaptable to future
climate conditions and result in a reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions should be prioritized.
Protect Communities through Resilience
Invest in the protection and restoration of natural
ecosystems that provide vital barriers against the extreme weather
brought on by climate change.
Require natural resource agencies to coordinate support
for state, tribal, and local government plans and tools for conserving
and protecting natural resources in the face of climate risk.
Promote and preserve green spaces, such as public parks,
to make communities more resilient to floods and extreme heat brought
on by climate change. This can also help address long-standing
injustices in access to green spaces when proactively planned in low-
income and underserved communities.
Redouble efforts to fortify brownfield and Superfund
sites against extreme weather, and clean up toxic sites as immediately
as possible so that they no longer pose a hazard and can be used by
communities for more productive purposes.
In addition to addressing the National Parks
infrastructure backlog, provide funding to the managers of federal
parks and public lands to deal with adaptation measures required due to
climate change impacts.
Support investments in drinking and waste water systems
to revitalize aging, critical infrastructure while protecting public
health. Federal investments in wastewater should seek to promote low-
impact development techniques like permeable pavements, vegetated
roadside swales, and rain gardens that can reduce stormwater pollution
while lowering management costs, along with other green development
projects.