[Senate Hearing 116-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:02 a.m. in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan Collins (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Collins, Boozman, Capito, Hoeven, Daines,
Reed, Murray, Durbin, Feinstein, Coons, Murphy, and Manchin.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATEMENT OF HON. ELAINE L. CHAO, SECRETARY
opening statement of senator susan m. collins
Senator Collins. Good morning. The Subcommittee will come
to order.
Today, I'm pleased to welcome Transportation Secretary
Elaine Chao, who will testify on the President's fiscal year
2020 Budget Request for the Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies.
I'm also pleased to be joined today by my friend and our
Ranking Member, Senator Jack Reed.
Before we hear from the Secretary on the Administration's
Budget Request, I would first like to thank the members of the
subcommittee, even though none of them is here at this point
but I'm sure they will be joining us, for working together over
the last few months to finish the fiscal year 2019 THUD
Appropriations Bill.
We actually got our work done on time but unfortunately due
to other issues, it was held up.
Thanks, however, to the previous two-year budget agreement,
we were able to provide $87 billion for the Department of
Transportation, an historic level of funding and a real down
payment on our nation's infrastructure.
However, we will soon begin work on the fiscal year 2020
bill without any such budget agreement. If we do not reach an
agreement on the discretionary caps for fiscal year 2020, the
total funding available for non-Defense discretionary programs,
such as the vital transportation programs that we will be
discussing today, will fall by $55 billion.
The impact of sequestration level funding would be
devastating for our nation's infrastructure and housing
programs as well as for many other critical programs.
The Administration's 2020 Budget Request, unfortunately,
does not address this cap. As a result, DOT's discretionary
budget is cut by $5 billion from the fiscal year 2019-enacted
levels.
The budget request also fails to address the looming
insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund and offers no path forward
after the FAST Act expires at the end of fiscal year 2020.
It is imperative that the Administration work with the
authorizing committees to enact a long-term surface
transportation bill that provides realistic funding for the
Highway Trust Fund.
I am, however, pleased that the Administration included
funding for several critical infrastructure programs, including
$1 billion for the popular BUILD Grants.
Madam Secretary, I know that you have personally seen the
success of the BUILD Program in communities both urban and
rural, and I want to thank you for your advocacy for this
significant funding.
The request also proposes $2 billion for INFRA Grants for
both large and small freight projects and $300 million for a
competitive bridge program.
This program would reward states that use innovative
procurement practices to repair or replace rural bridges that
are in poor condition.
The request also includes funding levels consistent with
the FAST Act for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
NHTSA's preliminary data for motor vehicle traffic
fatalities in the first half of 2018 looked very promising with
a 3 percent decrease compared to the same period the year
before.
Safety should and I know will remain the department's top
priority and we encourage the department to continue its
efforts to reduce this number further in the coming year.
For the Maritime Administration, the budget request
includes $205 million for a different smaller-capacity training
ship in contrast to the $300 million provided for Maritime
Academy ships in each of the last 2 years.
I am deeply disappointed in this proposal which departs
from the years of planning and design work that MARAD completed
on the National Security Multi-Mission Vessel. This ship was
designed to provide identical training vessels for our state
maritime academies and building the same vessel for all
academies is expected to achieve cost savings.
This budget proposal would require MARAD to start from
scratch in designing a brand-new ship and would be detrimental
to the training needs at the Maine Maritime Academy which is
next in line for a replacement ship. We followed MARAD's
guidelines exactly and funded New York first, Massachusetts
last year, and Maine is scheduled for this year, but with a far
smaller and inferior ship provided in this budget.
In aviation, the budget invests in safety and the
efficiency of our nation's airspace. The request includes $3.3
billion for facilities and equipment, an increase above the
fiscal year 2019-enacted level, and the highest-ever provided
by any Administration.
These investments will help accelerate next gen programs
that are already proving successful by reducing flight times
and delays.
Innovative programs, such as the ADSV, will allow aircraft
to use precision satellite-based positioning instead of radars,
a much-needed improvement.
In addition, the request includes funding to ensure the
safe integration of drones into the national airspace as well
as to meet regulatory mandates.
The budget proposes to establish a new Office of Innovation
to deal effectively with the surge of new aviation technologies
while allowing for continued innovation and safety.
While the FAA continues to maintain the safest air traffic
control system in the world, we are all too aware of the recent
crashes of the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 and Lion Air
Flight 610. Both crashes involved Boeing 737 Max aircraft and
both crashed just minutes after takeoff in eerily similar
circumstances.
After seeing the satellite data from the Ethiopian Airlines
crash, the FAA and the department decided to ground the 737 Max
aircraft and the agency is now working closely with the NTSB on
the crash investigation.
We must await the results of this investigation prior to
reaching conclusions about the causes of these crashes.
However, these recent incidents have focused attention on FAA's
aircraft certification process for Boeing 737 Max aircraft and
on the training of pilots.
I expect many of us have questions for the Secretary on
FAA's relationship with Boeing and the Government's role in
ensuring the safety of the traveling public.
I commend the Secretary for requesting the Inspector
General to initiate an audit of FAA's certification of the 737
Max aircraft.
Senator Reed and I have sent a letter to the Inspector
General asking that the results of this critical audit be
shared with us.
Madam Secretary, again, I welcome you here today. I look
forward to hearing your testimony, and I now turn to our
Ranking Member, Senator Reed, for his opening statement.
opening statement of senator jack reed
Senator Reed. Thank you, Chairman Collins.
Let me again compliment you and your staff for working with
me and my staff and the other committee members year after year
to produce strong bipartisan bills that support our housing and
transportation sectors. Thank you very much.
Let me also join you in welcoming Secretary Chao. Madam
Secretary, thank you for being here. I thank you for your
leadership.
As Congress begins to develop the 2020 appropriations, the
reauthorization of our surface transportation programs and
potentially a broader infrastructure package, I believe our
2018 and 2019 THUD bill should be the baseline from which new
transportation investments should grow.
In the face of a proposed $68 billion cut in total non-
Defense funding, the top entrenched station escapes some of the
damage in the President's budget request in comparison to other
agencies.
However, I think we can all agree that the request still
falls short of addressing the severe infrastructure
deficiencies we face as a nation and backslides from the
investments we made in 2019.
If we are to pass a THUD and the other 11 appropriations
bills this year, we'll need to set aside the Administration's
cuts and start with a new multiyear budget agreement that
builds on the last bipartisan budget act. Such an agreement
must provide additional funding to meet the needs of the nation
as well as parity between Defense and non-Defense discretionary
spending.
I believe that such an agreement can be reached and the
appropriations bills can move forward in regular order,
provided that the Administration does not engage in the same
kind of brinksmanship that resulted in the longest government
shutdown in history this last winter.
With respect to DOT's 2020 Request, I'm pleased to see some
movement towards support for additional investment in transit.
While the recommended funding levels are still woefully
inadequate to support the 66 projects in the Capital Investment
Grants pipeline, the request is an improvement from previous
years.
Nonetheless, too many other high-ranking projects will
languish without a decision from the department. These delays
result in uncertainty and unnecessary increased costs for state
and local governments. DOT needs to move ahead.
In spite of proposed cuts elsewhere at DOT, the budget
preserves investments in FAA safety and other air traffic
control systems. These are a basic form of safety in our flight
system in the United States and, indeed, the model for the
world.
However, the fatal Lion and Ethiopian Air accidents have
called into question FAA's certification practices, pilot
training requirements, and the integration of new technologies.
I know that you cannot discuss issues related to pending
investigations, but these accidents require capital analysis of
the technical failures and a reassessment of the relationship
between the FAA and those businesses it regulates. Certainly
this should occur before the department goes any further to
execute expanded certification authorities.
As I noted earlier, the 2018 and 2019 THUD bills provided a
baseline from which we should expand transportation funding,
but truthfully we need an even bolder investment in our roads,
bridges, and transit systems in the next surface
reauthorization bill. Small adjustments for inflation are a
non-starter.
We also need to look to the future and plan infrastructure
projects that will withstand natural disasters and mitigate the
effects of climate change. The anticipated impacts of rising
sea levels in the Northeast Corridor alone stand to cripple the
entire regional economy if we do not prepare now.
And we must also recognize that infrastructure exists
beyond transportation, from water systems to public school
buildings. We cannot expect states and localities to shoulder
these costs on their own nor can we expect tax incentives and
private investments to support our national infrastructure plan
that leaves all communities.
Secretary Chao, thank you again for your service and for
appearing before us today. I look forward to hearing your
testimony and responses to our questions.
Thank you, Chairman Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Senator Reed.
Madam Secretary, we're delighted to welcome you today and
look forward to your testimony.
summary statement of hon. elaine l. chao
Secretary Chao. Thank you, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member
Reed, and Members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to
meet today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2020 Budget
Request for the Department of Transportation.
But before I begin, let me emphasize that safety is always
Number 1 at the Department of Transportation and a good day is
when nothing bad happens.
On March 10th, 2019, however, there was a terrible accident
in Ethiopia involving a U.S. manufactured aircraft. Our hearts
and condolences go out to the families of all those who
perished. We all have a lot of important questions about this
accident.
As you may know, the Ethiopian Government is in charge of
the crash accident investigation and the National
Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, is the U.S. representative
in the investigation, but I have taken two actions to help
determine what happened and what can be improved at the FAA.
First, I've asked the department's Inspector General to
initiate an audit, to compile a detailed factual history of the
activities that resulted in the certification of Boeing's 737
Max 800 involved in the accident. This certification began on
January 27th, 2012, and was certified March 8th, 2017.
Second, on Monday, I announced the formation of a special
advisory committee to provide independent impartial advice on
ways to improve the FAA's safety oversight and certification
processes.
There will be hearings on this subject, including one this
afternoon with Acting FAA Administrator Daniel Elwell, that
will provide more details.
I look forward to working with you and all concerned to
help resolve key questions surrounding this tragedy.
Now let me turn to the President's Budget Proposal which
continues to emphasize the importance of addressing our
nation's infrastructure needs using smart, effective, and
modern methods that provide results and maximize resources.
The President's budget requests a total of $84 billion to
support transportation programs in fiscal year 2020. About 75
percent of this request fully funds surface transportation for
the fifth and final year of the FAST Act and FAA's authorized
funding levels for the grants and aid for Airports Programs.
These programs support infrastructure improvements that are
essential to maintaining dependable transportation system that
supports our country's growing economy.
The remaining $21.4 billion of the request funds several
high-priority investments and important reforms that will
strengthen our programs while making them more effective.
You will note that the fiscal year 2020 request is about
$3.5 billion less than the recent fiscal year 2019
appropriations but DOT's funding was increased in fiscal year
2018 and fiscal year 2019 when the government-wide caps were
increased as part of the recent spending deal.
This was a one-time increase above the requested
President's budget. So with this in mind, the department's
programs tied very closely to fiscal year 2019-enacted
appropriations with a handful of exceptions.
For FAA, I'm pleased to note that the President's budget
includes $1.4 billion for next gen projects and activities.
This is the largest request in FAA history.
The budget includes $203 million for unmanned aircraft
initiatives, $1.6 million for the new Office of Innovation, and
65 million for commercial space safety and operations.
FAA's operations account is about $770 million less, as you
noted, from the fiscal year 2019-enacted appropriations.
However, this is a minor reduction when compared to the $10.3
billion provided for this account and is still approximately
$130 million above fiscal year 2018 levels.
FAA's grants and aid programs, the (AIP) Airport
Improvement Program does not include the additional $500
million in discretionary funds provided in 2019. Again, there
were many one-time increases which increased the comparison,
and given the timing differences between the time that the
President's budget was prepared and the actual passage of the
budget deals, there were some misalignments of the timing, as
well.
The President's budget continues to fund the Federal
Highway Administration at FAST Act levels and it also uses $300
million of the remaining funds for a new competitive Bridge
Program that focuses on improving our failing bridges.
For transit, the fiscal year 2020 funding level for CIG,
Capital Investment Grant, is $1.5 billion. This fully funds all
existing projects that are ready to go and reserves $500
million for new projects as they are ready to advance.
This budget funds Amtrak at $1.5 billion in total and this
fully funds Amtrak's needs based on traditional spending
patterns and increases funding available for rail
infrastructure and safety grants.
This budget also proposes a new idea that will provide $550
million in grants to support states in taking over
responsibility for long distance services over a five-year
period.
Let me also mention MARAD's budget request provides $300
million to fully fund the Maritime Security Program's 60 ships
and an additional $205 million for the third new school ship.
We want to work with you, Madam Chairman, on allowing the
department to continue to replace the aging training ships
currently being used at the state maritime academies.
I look forward to working with all of you on these and
other transportation issues over the coming year, and I'm
pleased to answer any and all of your questions.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Elaine L. Chao
introduction
Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Reed, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to meet today to discuss
the President's fiscal year 2020 Budget request for the Department of
Transportation (DOT). The President's budget proposal--A Budget for A
Better America--continues to emphasize the importance of addressing our
Nation's infrastructure needs using smart, effective and modern methods
that provide results and maximize our resources.
The President's Budget requests a total of $84 billion to support
transportation programs in fiscal year 2020. About 75 percent of this
request fully funds surface transportation for the ``fifth'' and final
year of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act and the
Federal Aviation Administration's authorized funding levels for the
Grants-in-Aid for Airports program. These programs support
infrastructure improvements that are critical to maintaining dependable
transportation systems that support our growing economy.
The remaining 25 percent of this request, or $21.4 billion, funds
several high priority investments and important reforms that will
strengthen our programs while making them more efficient. This portion
of the budget is a $5.1 billion reduction from fiscal year 2019 enacted
levels, because of the additional infrastructure investments the
Congress committed to in the two-year Government-wide discretionary
funding caps deal. When you deduct those temporary increases, this
request provides a robust level for many of the Department's programs
and tracks very closely to the fiscal year 2019 enacted appropriations.
comparing dot resources across years
Some have noted that the President's fiscal year 2020 Budget
request is about 20 percent less than the fiscal year 2019 enacted
appropriations for discretionary programs. While this is technically
true for a relatively small subset of the budget, it is misleading and
does not tell the whole story.There are two important points to
consider.
First, unlike most domestic programs, DOT's mandatory programs are
not traditional entitlements. Instead, they result from contract
authority that is provided for infrastructure transportation programs.
However, these levels are not a given. Every year the Executive Branch
and this subcommittee determine what the annual obligation limit should
be that ultimately controls the level of investment. With this in mind,
a comparison of the Department's overall funding of $84 million
provides a more representative measure for comparison and reflects only
a 4 percent reduction.
Timing also plays a critical role in developing budgets. When the
President's fiscal year 2020 Budget was being developed, we did not
have a final fiscal year 2019 Appropriation and were operating under a
long-term Continuing Resolution. In the absence of a fiscal year 2019
Enacted Appropriation, the Administration relied on its own fiscal year
2019 President's Budget request as the basis for the fiscal year 2020
President's Budget decisions. When we compare the President's Budget
request for fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2020, the fiscal year 2020
budget provides an overall 8.9 percent increase. Further, compared to
the fiscal year 2017 enacted level, prior to the budget cap deal
increases, the overall increase for fiscal year 2020 is almost 8
percent. This reflects the Administration's strong support for funding
transportation infrastructure investments even as other portions of the
President's Budget were targeted for reductions.
modernizing our nation's airspace
The President's Budget requests $17.1 billion to support the
important work of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA
manages our Nation's airspace and directs the safe transportation of 1
billion passengers and 25 million tons of cargo each year. At the same
time, the FAA is continually advancing new technologies and innovations
that improve its operations and help the Agency keep pace with
increasing demand for reliable air services. The FAA's signature
NextGen program is focused on integrating these critical safety and
innovation technologies into the National Airspace System using the
resources across its accounts.
The President's request acknowledges the importance of this program
by providing $1.4 billion in resources specifically dedicated to
NextGen initiatives. This is the highest request for NextGen in the
Department's history. The President's Budget funds the FAA's overall
Operations at $10.3 billion. While this level is $70 million below
fiscal year 2019 enacted levels, this is only a slight reduction
overall and certainly sufficient to meet the Agency's needs. At the
same time, the FAA's Facilities and Equipment program received $3.3
billion--a nearly $300 million increase. These funds will be focused on
modernizing FAA's infrastructure to improve safety and reduce flight
delays.
improving surface transportation infrastructure
Consistent with previous years and the Administration's
infrastructure improvement priorities, the President's Budget funds the
Federal Highway Administration at the level authorized by the FAST Act
to support highway infrastructure improvements and highway safety
programs. The President's request does not continue the $3.3 billion in
funding for the discretionary Highway Infrastructure Program, which was
new in fiscal year 2018. Instead, it provides substantial additional
resources to successful competitive programs. These include $1 billion
to the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) Grant program to
supplement the $1 billion provided by the FAST Act for a total of $2
billion in INFRA Grants; and $1 billion to the Better Utilizing
Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Grant program. The INFRA
and BUILD programs have been effective in delivering high returns on
investment by encouraging local contributions and partnerships with the
private sector. Another $300 million is provided for the innovative
Competitive Bridge Program which encourages States to replace and
repair deteriorating bridges cost effectively through project bundling.
In addition, the fiscal year 2020 request includes $500 million to
improve the Nation's aging transit assets and infrastructure.
transit's capital investment grant program
The Federal Transit Administration's Capital Investment Grant
Program supports the construction of new transit, commuter rail, light
rail, and bus rapid transit projects. The Administration continues to
encourage increased local contributions in the funding of transit
projects. The President's Budget provides $1.0 billion to fund the
current portfolio of capital investment projects with signed full
funding grant agreements at the time the Budget was developed. In
addition, another $500 million is provided for new projects in the
program pipeline as they become ready.
investing in emerging technologies and innovation
Every day, Americans wake up to new and advanced technological
improvements that are changing the way we live, work and enjoy life.
Technology is also rapidly changing transportation. The Department has
a responsibility to ensure that new transportation systems are
integrated into the overall transportation network in a safe and
prudent way.
The President's Budget request includes nearly $300 million to
address emerging technologies and innovation. This includes $203
million for unmanned aircraft systems which will be integrated into the
National Airspace, and a new Office of Innovation within the FAA to
focus on integration issues resulting from the latest emerging
technologies. Another $25.6 million is requested to protect the public
during take-off and reentry of Commercial Space launches.
A total of $19.2 million is also requested in the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's budget to oversee the introduction of
automated driving systems on our Nation's highways as this technology
continues to mature.
amtrak reforms
The President's Budget request proposes reforms to Amtrak that
would provide efficiencies and reduce costs. Amtrak's new leadership
team has been making strides in implementing practical and effective
cost saving measures while maintaining quality service. The President's
Budget funds Amtrak at nearly $1.5 billion in total. The Northeast
Corridor is funded at $325 million which funds Amtrak's needs based on
traditional spending patterns. Further, the President's Budget includes
funding available for rail infrastructure and safety grants--a new
approach from previous requests.
The President's Budget includes a proposal to reform the way
Amtrak's long-distance routes are managed. These routes are currently
fully funded by Federal dollars and account for the majority of the
railroad's operating losses. DOT will help lead the way on a new
vision, working with stakeholders to develop a rationalized network to
provide better, more cost-efficient service. This modernized network
will focus trains on shorter distance routes between promising city
pairs, while providing robust intercity bus service to currently
underserved rural areas via partnership between Amtrak and bus
operators.
At the same time, the Department understands that many States and
communities may not have the resources to assume immediate financial
responsibility for these services. With this in mind, the President's
Budget includes $550 million in transitional grants that would assist
States in taking on the management of these newly created State-
supported routes. The grants would support the costs of these routes in
fiscal year 2020 and would phase down and out over a five-year period.
supporting the training needs of the state maritime academies
Along with the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, the State Maritime
Academies provide the education and training needed to successfully
support the Nation's needs for qualified and experienced merchant
mariners. The Academies are currently operating with a fleet of
training ships that are either at, or approaching, the end of their
useful service life. Funding for the two oldest vessels is already
secured and plans are underway to build replacements. The President's
Budget includes $205 million for a third training ship to further this
effort.
Thank you again, for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the President's fiscal year 2020 Budget. I will be happy to
answer your questions.
Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Secretary Chao.
When I look at the news reports on the two crashes
involving the Boeing 737 Max aircraft, two issues keep arising.
One is the adequacy of pilot training and the second is the
delegation, the Organization Delegation Authority that allows
the manufacturer to play a key role in certifying safety
management systems.
I know that you have investigations ongoing and I commend
you for asking the Inspector General to audit the system, but
I'd like to ask you just a couple of questions in that area, to
the extent that you are able to comment.
According to recent news reports, FAA management may not
have been aware of the role that was played by the Maneuvering
Characteristics Augmentation System or MCAS software, and as a
result did not require simulator training for pilots as part of
the certification process.
First of all, is that accurate? Do you know whether or not
the agency required additional training to ensure that pilots
were aware fully of the MCAS System and how to override it
using the trim procedure?
Secretary Chao. The pilot training would have been part of
the certification process. This occurred on January 12th, 2012,
and the certification ended on March 7th, 2017.
So that is a question that the IG investigation hopefully
will provide as well as that of the special committee that I
have set up to look at all of this.
Senator Collins. Let's talk about the broader issue of the
cooperative relationship that the FAA has with manufacturers
under the Organization Delegation Authorization, the ODA
Program, as it's referred to.
It seems to me that is an important aspect of FAA's Safety
Management System. It can allow for increased transparency and
FAA has limited resources. So these cooperative relationships,
if they work appropriately, can help improve safety and stretch
the ability of FAA to ensure the safety of our aircraft.
But some have expressed the concern that the use of the ODA
to accelerate the commercial aims of Boeing or another
manufacturer sacrifices potentially the safety of the traveling
public.
Can you give us some insight into how that system works and
why it actually does not in any way undermine what I know is
your top priority, which is safety?
Secretary Chao. This practice of involving others who are
involved in the building of an actual plane has dated back to
the 1920s. So this is not a new procedure. It has been expanded
over the years and most recently in the FAA Reauthorization Act
that was passed in October 2018 on a bipartisan basis. More
authority was given to the FAA to work with those who build the
planes, who actually know what is going on in this process.
The FAA is the one that certifies. There are set procedures
of safety standards that an airline manufacturer must meet and
they go according to this prearranged/prespecified set of
criteria and then they would say ``we have done this, we have
done that, we have done this.''
It is, of course, subject to oversight and supervision by
the FAA because the FAA does not build planes, they certify.
But this method of having the manufacturer also be involved in
looking at these standards is really necessary because, once
again, the FAA cannot do it on their own. They need to have the
input from the manufacturer.
Having said that, I am, of course, concerned about any
allegations of coziness with any company or manufacturer. The
FAA is a professional organization. There are 44,000 people
working at the FAA whose main mission every day is to ensure
the safety of our traveling public. But these questions, when
they arise, if they arise, are troubling because we should have
absolute confidence in the regulators that they are certifying
properly. And so that is why, once again, the IG investigation
hopefully, along with the special committee that I have set up,
will yield some answers.
Senator Collins. Thank you very much.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank
you, Madam Secretary.
I want to follow a line of questioning that the Chairman
started.
How long did it take for Boeing to earn its ODA status and
how many people did it have dedicated to the ODA process?
Secretary Chao. They build a lot of planes. So I'm
speculating a bit here. It's been an ongoing process not only
with Boeing, it's with whoever is building the airplane, big or
small. This is a practice that's been, you know, decades in the
making. There are about 400 people, I think, that are involved
in this.
Senator Reed. Thank you. And again this touches on one of
the concerns you just expressed, but to what extent are ODA
staff at Boeing or at other enterprises awarded incentive
bonuses if they meet company-established certification
deadlines?
Are there financial incentives that may make decisions more
difficult in terms of technical aspects?
Secretary Chao. I'm not able to answer that question.
Senator Reed. Is that something that the IG would pursue?
Secretary Chao. Certainly. And if you suggest, we will do
that.
Senator Reed. Thank you. How many FAA personnel work on
some aspect of Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft certification? Do you
have an idea?
Secretary Chao. I think just on the certification, it's
more than 400, but the whole FAA is involved. If it is air
traffic control, that's about, you know, 15,000 air traffic
controllers.
Senator Reed. I would assume, and again this is an
assumption, that there was a team at Boeing that was focused
almost exclusively on the 737 Max project.
Secretary Chao. Yeah. I think it was about 400, as I
mentioned.
Senator Reed. 400 versus a number that you'll provide us in
terms of the ODA personnel at Boeing. So we'll get a rough idea
of----
Secretary Chao. I do not know how many at Boeing.
Senator Reed. One of the issues is, and this, I think, I
hope you're going to pursue in your investigations, is just the
span of control, the ability of limited number of FAA to
actually effectively involve themselves with the Boeing
personnel on this case and that's an issue I hope you can get
back to us on.
Secretary Chao. I share your concern on that, as well.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Madam Secretary. One of the
things, too, is across all of our Federal agencies, we have
challenges recruiting very talented technologists because of
the competition with private enterprise.
So what is the FAA doing to address this challenge, and do
you have the necessary personnel with the right skill sets? I
mean, there's one possibility that you could have had very
well-meaning and very well-trained people there but for these
new, very sophisticated systems, they didn't have the same
level of expertise as their counterparts. So, by default, they
had to essentially agree even if there were questions.
So how are you going to address this challenge of getting
the very best people, technologists, involved?
Secretary Chao. I think the FAA's pretty experienced.
Again, they don't build airplanes, which is why this ODA system
was initially put in place. We have very experienced
professionals.
Let me also answer your previous question.
Senator Reed. Yes.
Secretary Chao. The Boeing ODA process took about two years
and there are 1,461 Boeing employees working on the ODA.
Senator Reed. And you have about 400 FAA people involved
directly in that program roughly?
Secretary Chao. Right.
Senator Reed. Thank you. There was discussion after the
Lion Air accident, not only discussion but activity to make a
modification, a software patch, if you will, with respect to
lessons learned unfortunately from the Lion Air crash.
What are those modifications intended to achieve and why
was the aircraft allowed to fly in the meantime if there was a
recognition that you had to fix something and then the aircraft
was still allowed to fly? How was that decision made?
Secretary Chao. You know, the FAA is a very professional
fact-based organization and they don't make decisions that are
too hasty. They take great pride in ensuring, again, the safety
of the entire world's international travelers.
The Americans have always been the gold standard for
aviation safety and it is FAA who has built that reputation
over time.
Again, they're very fact-based and when the Lion Air 610
crash occurred, they immediately issued an Emergency
Airworthiness Directive alerting the entire international
community to this problem that they saw, and to be careful and
to know how to react.
Then Boeing began to update and look at their software and
that was the sequence of events.
I hope I may also add one other thing.
Senator Reed. Yes, ma'am.
Secretary Chao. On the initial point about pilot training.
I don't want to say too much about that because it's really
important that we remember who is in charge of this
investigation.
This is an international investigation and it has
additional complications, diplomacy issues, and we want to make
sure that we don't say anything that is hastily said, that we
are careful in our words, because again we want to show respect
to the Ethiopian Government and not jump to any conclusions at
this point because the Ethiopian Government is the authority
that controls the crash investigation.
They can disinvite anybody they would like.
Senator Reed. Yes, ma'am.
Secretary Chao. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Finally, I'm under the impression that there
are additional safety sensors that could have been purchased by
the airlines and some airlines did and some airlines did not.
Do you intend to require Boeing to retrofit all the
aircraft with the full suite of safety sensors in order to
provide maximum assurances to the public?
Secretary Chao. I don't think we're there yet, but it is
very questionable, if these were safety-oriented additions, why
they were not part of the required template of measures that
should go into an airplane. So this is one of the questions
which again the IG hopefully will help us answer and also the
special committee.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Madam Chairman, I'll defer for just a
minute to look at my notes. Thanks.
Senator Collins. Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Welcome, Madam Secretary, and thank you
very much for your help with CalTran. It's very much
appreciated, and it certainly gave it a good start back.
I am looking at preparing a bill that would require key
safety equipment be included in basic plane sale costs. How
would you look upon that kind of legislation?
Secretary Chao. As I mentioned to Ranking Member Reed, we
would like to take a look at what the studies what the audit
and the special committee recommend. But as I've said, I think
it's troubling that if indeed it was a safety feature that it
was not included.
Senator Feinstein. And I can see many of the exigencies
that go into a company's evaluation of what they buy above the
sales cost and a rationalization as to why this or that which
is safety equipment would not be necessary and to have two
planes go down allegedly from the same problem within a limited
period of time with a lot of people aboard says we're doing
something wrong to me.
So I feel very strongly that key safety equipment should be
included in the basic sale price of a plane, and I believe that
Americans would agree with that.
So I probably will go ahead and I would like to consult
with you on that as we move ahead.
Secretary Chao. Of course.
Senator Feinstein. Let me talk to you for a moment about
one San Francisco project, which is BART, Bay Area Transit. It
has a core capacity to increase capacity through the tube by 45
percent. It's been stalled for more than a year waiting for
approval from the department to enter the engineering phase of
administrative review.
The project was given a high rating by the FTA, the only
project in the pipeline to receive such a strong commendation.
However, the delays risk more than 20 million in costs to
maintain their contract bids and up to 5 percent in
construction costs escalation a year.
When can we expect administrative approval of the BART
project?
Secretary Chao. Currently, there are three actions that are
still pending, and I used to live in San Francisco and so I
used to take it. Number 1, there's a sole source procurement
request for the rail cars that has to be worked out because
there would likely be disagreement. Although I say that, we are
actually in productive and good discussions with BART right
now.
The second, they want a letter of no prejudice and to
advance to engineering.
With all three of them, there are still issues. We're not
holding them back, but we need to talk more, especially above
the sole source procurement initiative.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I'd like to sit down with you and
go over and maybe even have the company, BART, there, so that
we can all hear the same thing.
Secretary Chao. Of course.
Senator Feinstein. I'd appreciate that.
Secretary Chao. I think we're actually working well on it.
So I don't think----
Senator Feinstein. You think it can get solved?
Secretary Chao. I hope so.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I do, too. The second one is Los
Angeles and that's Phase 3 of L.A. Metro's Westside Purple Line
Extension.
The city is urgently trying to finish it in time for the
2028 Olympics and the project's administrative approval to
enter the engineering phase was delayed last year, which cost
almost $300 million in cost escalation, and they're going to
face a further cost escalation if they're not approved this
spring.
Congress has already appropriated $200 million toward the
project's total request of $1.3 billion. The city, county, and
state have committed to more than $2.1 billion.
Madam Secretary, can we expect the department to release
the funding that Congress has provided and approved the full
funding grant agreement for Los Angeles?
Secretary Chao. I want to--yes, of course. The answer is
yes, but I want to clarify something. There seems to be still
the thinking that we're holding back. We're really not holding
back.
In fiscal year 2017, since January 2017, we've awarded 13
CIG grants representing $3.3 billion. And just in this year
alone, we've advanced 15 projects in just CIG project
development. So many times, we are not the holdup.
Senator Feinstein. So what is?
Secretary Chao. Every single project may be different. We
fully funded all contracts that have been signed and in fact we
are also putting $500 million extra for new starts.
So each one of these projects, and we'll be more than glad
to go through them with you, it's a lengthy process. These are
billions of dollars. So they have to go from one stage to
another, meet certain criteria before they can go to the other.
For example, one other thing about the three issues for
BART. The FTA has to take a look at all three requests in
unison.
Senator Feinstein. For L.A. and BART together?
Secretary Chao. Oh, no. That's just BART.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
Secretary Chao. So the three actions that I mentioned
before, the sole source procurement request, a letter of no
prejudice request, and the request to enter engineering, all
three of them, I've been told, have to be considered in unison
and so that's part of the reason for the delay, but we are in
discussion with BART. It's just a matter of working out some of
these issues.
On the L.A. issue, that is actually a bit more complicated.
But it's not because we're holding back. Again, we have fully
funded all existing contracts and we're going ahead with them.
We have funded 500 million for new starts.
So many times when these projects don't go forward, it's
because they're not meeting some of the criteria.
Senator Feinstein. I'd like to straighten that out.
Secretary Chao. Okay.
Senator Feinstein. Because, this is a big deal.
Secretary Chao. Sure. I understand.
Senator Feinstein. Would you be willing, if I brought the
people back, to sit down with us and we'll go over it.
Secretary Chao. Sure.
Senator Feinstein. And see what we can do because there's a
300 million cost escalation now and if there are problems, we
need to solve them or it's only going to get worse and then the
Olympics will be in real trouble.
Secretary Chao. Which is why, again, this Administration
has worked so hard on permitting reform. Because when projects
are delayed, the costs increase exponentially which is no good
for anybody. So we're very concerned about that.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I will set that up.
Secretary Chao. Okay.
Senator Feinstein. I thank you for doing that. Thank you,
Madam Chairman.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Greetings, Secretary Chao. Good to see you again. Thanks
for your visits to our state and all the work that you do.
One of the things that I'm working on is in regard to
hauling livestock. It's a huge issue, transporting livestock by
truck for our ranchers, farmers, and for the last 2 years, this
committee has delayed implementation of the Electronic Logging
Devices for that reason, because, you know, when you're hauling
livestock, cattle, or whatever it may be, it's different than
hauling other products.
I mean, you've got to take care of the animals and so forth
and so it does require more flexibility and it is going to
require a different set of regulations and requirements, if you
will, in order to do it safely and humanely and so forth.
So we have delayed its implementation and in the meantime,
Senator Bennett and myself on a bipartisan basis have
introduced the Modernizing Agricultural Transportation Act, and
I think we're up to about, I don't know, 10-12 co-sponsors and
we're bringing them on a bipartisan way. So it's all
bipartisan, and we hope to get quite a few sponsors because
essentially what it does, it's a solution to this issue.
It requires that we put together experts in agriculture and
transportation and labor and so forth and actually do a study
of, you know, what is the right solution in this area and then
that study has to be back to you, to DOT, within a year and
then I think you've got, I don't know, 60 or 90 days in order
to implement, you know, propose a rule or regulation to address
it.
So it's really an effort in a collaborative way to address
the issue as far as electronic logging devices and hauling
livestock and live product.
I guess, give me your thoughts now that I've described it
and how we can work on this together to try to get a good
solution in this area, if you would.
Secretary Chao. Well, this is what happens when there's a
one-size-fits-all solution.
Senator Hoeven. Right.
Secretary Chao. It doesn't work across the country because
our country is so diverse. With electronic logging devices,
that created hardship for small truckers and it also created a
hardship for agricultural interests, farmers, people who are
hauling in rural areas.
So we were very cognizant of that. We worked with all
Senators who are concerned about that, but the issue actually,
as it turned out, is not the electronic logging device. It's
the hour of service. So we are actually looking at that, as
well, on a bipartisan basis and we hope to come out with some
conclusions on that. But again, we're very much aware of the
hardship that these inflexible rules have placed on rural and
agricultural interests.
Senator Hoeven. Are you willing to work with us on our
legislation to address it?
Secretary Chao. Of course.
Senator Hoeven. Thanks, Secretary. Also, along with Senator
Wyden, I have legislation called The Move America Program, and
essentially it provides two things. It provides tax-exempt
financing, tax-exempt bonds, and it provides investment tax
credit, and it really lets the states drive, you know, how that
investment is made.
It allocates out to the states the ability to issue tax-
exempt bonds and investment tax credit for the purpose of
attracting private investment into infrastructure funding and
so the whole idea is, as we work toward getting an
infrastructure bill and this will be infrastructure obviously
of all kinds, roads, bridges, broadband, everything, this
really leverages the Federal dollar investment by attracting
private investment to the tune of $226 billion.
And so tell me your thoughts on including that in an
infrastructure package and working to draw that private
investment and utilizing something like Move America to help us
get more infrastructure funding out there in a way that
leverages, you know, the Federal tax dollar.
Secretary Chao. Well, the President's infrastructure bill,
which was sent to the Congress last February 12th, 2018, wanted
to leverage $200 billion in Federal funding to a trillion and
even $1.5 trillion in overall investments.
Unfortunately, that bill just didn't have enough votes, but
I think there is a lack of understanding of the leveraging
impact of allowing private sector pension funds, for example,
or endowment funds to be able to participate in the financing
of public infrastructure.
These are long-term financial investments--these are
pension funds, endowment funds. They look for long-term
investments and they especially like collateral that doesn't
walk away. So they're actually ideal to help in the financing
of public infrastructure, understanding that sometimes in Rural
America that doesn't work.
But there are 26 states that have some kind of limitations
on allowing the private sector to participate in the financing
of public infrastructure and that's really a shame because this
is a pool of money that is very long term. It's steady and
really should be tapped.
Senator Hoeven. Yeah. And we need it to get to the kind of
scale we want in an infrastructure package.
Final, just you've been out to see all the things we're
doing on UAS, unmanned aerial systems, and I want to thank you
so much for the partnership that we have between our test sites
and other test sites through the FAA and just any other
thoughts?
You've been such a champion and such a supporter, whether
it's the UAS Integrated Pilot Program or now the Unmanned
Traffic Management Pilot Program where we are working with FAA
and NASA, tremendous, just tremendous. I thank you for your
strong leadership on it.
Any other thoughts on top of the mind on UAS that we should
be tuned in as we work this phenomenal partnership with you?
Secretary Chao. Well, I want to commend you for your
leadership when you were Governor and then obviously now as
Senator, making North Dakota the place to be for drones and
autonomous vehicles.
Most recently, the department issued three Notices of
Proposed Rulemakings which would allow pilot programs to be
studied for potential waivers of drone activity over the heads
of people at night and outside the line of sight. These are
important pilot programs which will give us a lot of
information about the operation of drones and different
automated driving systems in different climates, different
terrains, and also obviously under different conditions.
I'm combining both automated vehicles and the drones, but
your state is terrific at all of that and so we hope to learn a
lot. That would be very helpful for the future.
Senator Hoeven. Right. Well, thanks for your leadership on
it and for coming out and seeing what we're doing. I really
appreciate it.
Senator Collins. Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. I'm going to defer to Senator Manchin.
Senator Collins. Senator Manchin.
Senator Manchin. Two very quick questions. First of all,
how are we funding rural highway funding, Madam Secretary?
In West Virginia, we have the seventh largest road system,
we're responsible for it, and I think my question would be
consider increasing funding for existing programs, like the
Surface Transportation Block Grants.
ARC used to handle for Appalachian corridors. We're in
desperate need. We have a deteriorating system that the state
cannot stay ahead of us in these rural areas, and I don't know
if it's been brought to your attention, if there's a way that
you can help us, but there's a way that we used to get help
from ARC, Appalachian Regional Commission (A-R-C), and also
from the block grants, transportation block grants.
Secretary Chao. Senator, I hear this a lot from the other
Senator of West Virginia, as well.
Senator Manchin. You're hearing it from both of us. We hit
the same potholes. It's not a Democratic or Republican pothole.
Secretary Chao. No. So this is an issue that's----
Senator Manchin. We need help. We really need help, ma'am.
We're not--I mean, it's just the bottom line. It's critical
mass right now.
My last--go ahead. We just need your help.
Secretary Chao. I think for this----
Senator Manchin. Maybe together we can come meet with you
and show you the maps where we're having all the problems.
Secretary Chao. Yes, of course. I think Rural America needs
to be paid attention to.
Senator Manchin. Right.
Secretary Chao. In fact, Rural America has
disproportionately high number of traffic accidents. So we are
paying attention to Rural America. It's not preferential
treatment but it's a matter of equity and fair play.
Senator Manchin. Madam Secretary, one question I get asked
about the 737 Max 8, as you've been asked many questions, why
it took us so long to ground that plane when we have been the
leader in the FAA and we set the standard, gold standard. It
looks like we're following now the rest of the world because
I'm a pilot, also. I knew something was wrong. You can't have
that type of angle of attack not being put on as optional
equipment. It's just wrong.
So I don't know how that was made or why we waited so long.
That would be my----
Secretary Chao. Well, thank you for asking that question.
It's an important one, and I had mentioned it in my opening
remarks.
Senator Manchin. I know you did.
Secretary Chao. That's fine. I've said that a good day at
the Department of Transportation is when nothing bad happens
and on March 10th, Sunday, something bad happened with an
American-manufactured aircraft.
Senator Manchin. Sure.
Secretary Chao. At the time, FAA did not have any
information which mandated or indicated that grounding of the
aircraft, 737 Max 800s, would have to occur.
Senator Manchin. Well, that plane lost the confidence of
the American traveling public because there were parents flying
and their kids that didn't know what plane they were flying on.
I mean, it just should--I'm just saying you don't have to
reiterate.
Secretary Chao. No.
Senator Manchin. I just hope that we react quicker the next
time.
Secretary Chao. Well, that's an issue that I wanted to
explain. Because the FAA is a fact-based organization, and
based on the information that everyone had at that time, March
10th, March 11th, March 12th, there was no factual basis upon
which to ground the planes.
So, conversely, if you don't have the factual basis upon
which to ground a plane, how do you unground the plane?
Senator Manchin. Let me just say this to you. All your
professionals, and I'm going to get out of here because I'm--
make sure your professionals are looking. If there are options
on a plane that deal with safety, there is a problem. If that's
an optional cost that deals with safety, like the angle of
attack, there's a big problem. That should be--every one of
your total professionals should be looking at options that
they're putting on a plane that should be on it mandatory from
the factory if it's about safety.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Secretary Chao. Well, Senator Feinstein brought that up, as
well, and so we said we will work on that.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Senator.
Secretary Chao. May I? This is actually pretty important.
So what happened is that on March 10th, March 11th, March
18th, even as countries were shutting down or making decisions
about the 737 800s, the FAA did not feel that they had any
information which would warrant the grounding.
What happened on the morning of March 13th, Wednesday, are
the appearance of two additional pieces of informations which
changed the FAA's analysis of the situation, plus the third
thing about the black box. So let me go into that.
Number 1. The FAA received satellite information that it
was finally able to decipher. The information was very raw. It
could not be read very well. So it took the FAA that morning of
the 13th to enhance the information.
It was the first three minutes of the flight of Ethiopian
Air 302 and it showed similarities to what happened with Lion
Air. That was the first time there was evidence, factual
evidence on what happened.
Number 2. Without saying very much, at the crash site in
Ethiopia, there was found physical evidence that seemed to
correspond to the physical evidence of Lion Air 610.
So those two additional facts, plus the fact that the FAA
thought that black box would arrive sooner.
Because this is a much more complicated crash investigation
involving international interests, the initial assessment as to
when the information from the black box would be available was
not as quickly as originally thought.
So with those three factors, Air, based on solid evidence
that seemed to indicate some similarity, the FAA decided and
made the decision to ground the 737 Max 800s and 900s.
Thank you.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank
the Secretary for being here today and for everything,
particularly like to thank for the two BUILD Grants that we
were able to secure in West Virginia at $20 million each.
One of these is Corridor H, which is a huge driver of
economic development in through the central part of our state,
and when it connects, it will better connect us to the Mid-
Atlantic and we're excited about that.
I would like to ask you, where do you see, after just
having your first round of BUILD Grants or maybe this is the
second round, where do you see that program going and how is
that effectively treated in your budget?
Secretary Chao. Well, we have increased the BUILD Grant and
INFRA Grant in every request in the President's budget.
Obviously it's very popular with members of Congress and so
we will be supportive, but one of our challenges, I will have
to say, is that it's a lot of money and we have very short
timelines for turning it around.
I know that everyone is anxious to receive these grants,
but if we get criticized for not meeting some targeted
deadlines, I hope that people will realize that it's not due to
lack of effort on our part but because the deadlines are very
tight and there's billions of dollars going out.
Senator Capito. Would you say that's a highly-competitive
program that you have to turn a lot of people away?
Secretary Chao. It's very, very competitive.
Senator Capito. Right.
Secretary Chao. I congratulate the winners by saying it's
almost one in 10, very competitive.
Senator Capito. Right. Well, thank you.
Secretary Chao. One in 11.
Senator Capito. We're glad to be one of those one in 10
twice.
The budget request also cancels $210 million in unobligated
balances for the Appalachian Development Highway System and
it's certainly true that some states have accrued large
unobligated balances in this account but several states, like
West Virginia, are making good faith efforts to finish those
final stretches. Corridor H is that final stretch.
I'd like to know, has the department considered
reallocating those funds to states that are actively involved
in a viable construction completion plan rather than have it
sit in the states that are not moving forward on their projects
or having it accrue to--you know, just keep accruing at the
state level rather than rescinding it, reallocating it to
states like ours that still have a project that we're actively
pursuing?
Secretary Chao. We can't do that. That would require
legislative action.
Senator Capito. We're working on that. Let's see. The other
question I had is on the (TIFIA) Transportation Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act Program. The budget request is $300
million, which is the authorized limit for the TIFIA Program
again this year. At the end of fiscal year 2018, the department
stated that TIFIA had a $1.65 billion in unobligated budget
authority.
Where does the unobligated budget authority stand now after
this appropriations of $300 million? Is the money moving
quicker out of there or why is it still unobligated?
Secretary Chao. It's $1.9 billion unobligated authority.
Senator Capito. Unobligated.
Secretary Chao. You know, we continue to make these loans.
In 2017, 11 loans were made, totaling $4.1 billion, and in
fiscal year 2019, three loans were made, totaling $1.3 billion.
So, again, we're not holding these up, but these are
complicated multimillion dollar projects that include many
other parties and stakeholders, as well as state and local
governments, municipalities, metropolitan planning, regional
planning authorities.
Senator Capito. Right.
Secretary Chao. So it's very complicated project financing
and it requires obviously a great deal of work, but we're not
slowing it down.
Senator Capito. So let me ask this question a different
way. Is TIFIA the reason we have unobligated balances, over a
billion dollars, close to $2 billion now, is the process too
complicated for certain areas to be able to make this relevant
to projects in their rural states and other states?
Secretary Chao. Well, I've been very concerned about rural
projects because even though I've lived in California and New
York, I've also lived in Rural America. I understand the
particular challenges with Rural America and that's why I've
initiated the Rural Projects Initiative where we hope once
again that, Number 1, Rural America understands that this pot
of money is available and understands how to apply for it. We
cannot guarantee outcomes.
Senator Capito. Right.
Secretary Chao. But we can certainly let people know,
states and localities know that this is available for Rural
America.
Senator Capito. All right. Well, I look forward to working
with you on that.
Thank you so much.
Secretary Chao. Thank you.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank
you, Madam Secretary, for being here today.
In your request to Congress, you note that ``the Northeast
Corridor, the Northeast Rail Corridor is one of the most
important transportation assets in the United States. The
lifeblood of the region's economy, the NEC carries more than
800,000 people each day on Amtrak and commuter services.'' That
is in your submission to Congress and so I'm seeking to square
that with a budget request to us that guts funding for the
Northeast Corridor, that is going to make it fairly impossible
for us to even maintain the state of good repair on what is the
busiest rail corridor in the country.
We carry about half of the country's passengers on a
stretch of rail that is relatively short compared to the size
of the nation.
Your budget cuts the Amtrak NEC Program in half, from $650
million to $325 million, and then completely eliminates the
State of Good Repair Program, which is a Federal and state
match program that benefits us greatly in the Northeast
Corridor.
So help me square this. Help me square your recognition
that this is the lifeblood of our region's economy with these
very draconian cuts.
We feel like we have been targeted by this Administration
and the President for specific cuts in infrastructure funding,
and I may ask you another question about that, but help me
figure out how I explain to my constituents why we're going to
be levied with these enormous cuts even though the
Administration seems to recognize that this is a vitally
important transportation corridor.
Secretary Chao. Well, they're not exactly cuts. Amtrak
receives about $1.5 billion overall from the Federal
Government. Indeed, it's the Northeast Corridor which is very
important. I take Amtrak all the time myself. It's about $325
million to support the capital needs and that has traditionally
been the amount of the President's budget requests. There have
been enacted amounts which are much higher but Amtrak has
almost a billion dollars in cash. If you look at their balance
sheet, that is still money on the books that they can be
drawing down upon.
Senator Murphy. Right. But that's nothing new.
Secretary Chao. Why is there idle cash of a billion
dollars?
Senator Murphy. But I guess, how can you say they're not
cuts? I mean, they are cuts. You are cutting the Northeast
Corridor by $325 million.
Secretary Chao. That's against the enacted, but compared
with the President's request, it's always been around this
level.
Senator Murphy. Compared with enacted, right. Well, that's
how we measure cuts is what we got last year versus what we get
this year.
So let me ask you another question about something we've
talked about before and that is two particular projects which
clog the Northeast Rail Corridor and that's Gateway and the
Portal Bridge.
A few weeks ago, FRA released its Annual Report and Funding
Recommendations on the Capital Investment Grants and there were
53 projects on that list. Only four of those 53 received
ratings under the medium threshold and these----
Secretary Chao. May I tell you something?
Senator Murphy [continuing]. These two projects were
amongst those four. Anyone who has spent any time riding the
Northeast Corridor or surveying it knows that the entire system
is clogged by the Portal Bridge in particular but also the
inability to get the Gateway Project done.
I know there is political hostility between the President
and the New York delegation and I know there's financing
questions about how you wish the state to go about coming up
with that money. We discussed that last year.
But to suggest that these are amongst the lowest priority
projects within the CIG Program, I don't think you'd find much
agreement on that inside the community of those who ride that
rail on a regular basis.
Secretary Chao. Well, these were ratings made not by the
political staff. They're made by the career staff, career
professionals, who look at all these different projects based
on criterias of financing, of local participation. The
political people don't have any say in any of that.
Senator Murphy. So then just tell me, and maybe you don't
know offhand, but what were the reasons why these projects,
which clog the entirety of the corridor, which happen to be
right next to New York City, represented by the Minority Leader
of the Senate, were rated that low?
Secretary Chao. It's actually quite complicated and a list
of the issues, the problems, were actually shared with the
sponsoring organization. Part of that is financing but it's
actually quite complicated, and it's all laid out pretty
transparently to them.
Senator Murphy. All right. Well, I'll look forward to
following up with you on that and trying to----
Secretary Chao. Sure.
Senator Murphy [continuing]. work with the Department of
Transportation to come up with some alternative plan, if it's
not the one that's been presented to you, in order to finance
these projects. We cannot move people and goods up and down the
Northeast Corridor if we don't have a way to move forward on
the Gateway Project or an equivalent and the reconstruction of
the Portal Bridge. They're not even in my state. I just know
that my state can't move people anywhere without them.
Secretary Chao. You have commuters going to New York and
New Jersey.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Secretary Chao. Senator Coons.
Senator Collins. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam
Chair and Ranking Member, for another important hearing, and
thank you, Secretary Chao, for joining us today. I appreciated
hearing from you back in December and the opportunity to work
with you on a BUILD Grant. It will be critical to protecting
the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
Delaware, although small sits at the juncture of a number
of really critical transportation infrastructure projects
across our country and I'm glad we've had the opportunity to
work together on some investments in infrastructure security,
as well.
As someone who commutes virtually daily on the Northeast
Corridor, I'll simply amend and extend some of the comments
from my colleague from Connecticut. A number of us are from
states where Amtrak plays a really significant part in
transportation passenger rail and I recognize that from your
perspective the relevant analysis is what was proposed in last
year's budget. From our perspective, it's what was actually
enacted.
My concern about the cuts proposed to Amtrak is two-part.
The Federal-state partnership for state of good repair strikes
me as a great way to leverage state monies. Like TIGER Grants,
state of good repair partnerships between the Federal
Government and state governments allows state governments to
bring the money to the table when they want to improve commuter
rail, when they want to improve the Northeast Corridor in state
of good repair.
What's the wisdom behind zeroing that out all together?
There's zero proposed for it. I recognize we may well put it
back in enactment. We've done that the last 2 years, but when
there's a $38 billion maintenance backlog in the Northeast
Corridor and safety is a core concern and leveraging dollars
and having state governments play a role is a key part, why
zero that out in particular?
Secretary Chao. I think it's a philosophical point on
Amtrak overall, but as you mentioned, the Congress will do what
the Congress does.
Senator Coons. We will.
Secretary Chao. Yes. But I think that the cash balances do
need to be taken a look at. Why is it so high?
But having said that, the Northeast Corridor is the only
part of Amtrak that is heavily traveled, that is profitable,
and it is important.
Senator Coons. It is very heavily traveled, and it is
generating revenue.
The other piece of the Amtrak proposal in your overall
budget, if I understand correctly, eliminates long distance
routes in many states across the country and replaces it with a
subsidy for states to take over bus service.
If you could just take a minute and help me understand how
eliminating national passenger rail service and basically
turning Amtrak into the Northeast Corridor is a good idea for
the nation as a whole.
Even though Delaware really only benefits from the
Northeast Corridor, I'm concerned about what this would do to
Amtrak nationally.
Secretary Chao. Well, obviously Amtrak's plans to
restructure the long distance routes has not been met with
great enthusiasm by many of the Senators in whose states these
trains run. But it is also a fact that the average subsidy per
head for the long distance is of concern and it's not
sustainable. So it has to be continually subsidized, and a lot
of the travelers that use the long distance routes they don't
take the train for the whole distance. They only go from one
point to another.
Amtrak actually has plans for perhaps a bus system that
would substitute for these shorter haul travels. It's part of
their plan and what they've done is to try to move some of the
long distance into these Restoration and Enhancement Grants.
The National Network Grants was $611 million but the
remainder of what the enacted amount was put into the
Restoration and Enhancement Grants with an idea that somehow
this can be worked out with the states for long-term phase-out
of this.
Senator Coons. Right. Let me just move to one other
question, if I might, before my time's up, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Chao. Yes.
Senator Coons. I just enjoy working with you.
Secretary Chao. Thank you.
Senator Coons. But, I have to say I could not disagree more
strongly about the future for Amtrak as laid out in your budget
request and look forward to working with my colleagues from
states where passenger rail is a critical part of our
transportation infrastructure to ensure that there is adequate
enacted funding for Amtrak.
You do mention in your budget request that you're going to
address the insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund in a fiscally
responsible manner and according to the Airports Council,
airports face more than a $100 billion in infrastructure needs.
One of the big challenges I know you face is the lack of
appropriate revenue to fund a lot of this infrastructure
investment.
Do you and the President support raising the gas tax which
hasn't been raised since 1993 or lifting the cap on passenger
facility charges to help pay for airport improvements?
We are dramatically underfunding infrastructure in this
country and I wonder if you're willing to embrace either of
those proposals.
Secretary Chao. Well, I think the good news is nothing is
off the table and when we talk about the Highway Trust Fund,
obviously it's very important.
There's infrastructure discussions ongoing at the White
House. The chairman of the House Transportation Infrastructure
will be proposing some kind of a bill by May. The window for
action is pretty short, has to be done by August.
So we're interested in seeing what the proposals are and
commenting on that. But there's a larger vehicle, the Surface
Reauthorization Bill, which again the Administration is working
on that needs to be also done on a bipartisan basis.
Senator Coons. It does.
Secretary Chao. And so through the surface reauthorization,
we hope to be addressing the Highway Trust Fund.
Senator Coons. Well, thank you, Madam Secretary. I just
hope we can work on a bipartisan basis on an infrastructure
package that addresses the unmet and unfunded needs in
infrastructure in our country.
Thank you for your forbearance, Madam Chair.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Madam
Secretary, for being with us, and we appreciate all of your
hard work.
The first question I'd like to ask doesn't have anything to
do with spending money. In fact, it's actually one of those
things that saves a great deal of money.
On April 9th, 2018, the Department of Transportation signed
a Memorandum of Understanding implementing Executive Order
13807, also known as One Federal Decision Framework. This
Framework signaled a continued emphasis by the Trump
Administration and yourself on expediting infrastructure
project reviews by requiring improved coordination among all
Federal agencies within a single process.
Madam Secretary, understanding this is a relatively new
Framework, has the One Federal Decision had an impact on
streamlining approvals thus far, and then also very importantly
as we go forward with reauthorization, is there additional
tools that we need to give you to make the process even better?
Secretary Chao. Well, as Senator Feinstein mentioned with
the California projects, the longer it takes to build any
construction projects, the more expensive it gets. Over time,
the delays cost the public tremendous increases in the project
and cost.
So one of the ways in which we are trying to provide
quicker deliverables, so to speak, for the American public is
to re-examine the permitting process and see where there are
common sense ways in which we can make it easier for
construction projects to go forward without compromising
safety, without compromising the environment. Just to give you
some examples, right now, we have sister agencies within one
department that are unable to share results of the same survey
or the same report even. Each has to conduct their own report
or their own survey.
Secondly, a lot of actions by sister agencies within the
same department cannot occur simultaneously. They have to occur
sequentially.
So are there not more sensical ways in which we could share
information, do things simultaneously, concurrently rather than
sequentially?
So these are some of the issues that we are thinking about,
but also One Federal Decision in particular gives one
government agency the leading authority and responsibility for
monitoring a particular project. And that particular agency or
department would have the ability to overrule other
departments, and hopefully that will give the ability for
stakeholders to be able to move some projects quickly.
Senator Boozman. No, I agree totally, and, you know, a
great example of that was when the bridge collapsed in
Minnesota. That was rebuilt in a year and if you'd gone through
without the collaboration, you know, the attitude of we're here
to help and, let's get this done, there's no telling how long
that would have taken--well, 10+ years in a conventional way
anyway.
Secretary Chao. Well, you mentioned the bridge collapse. In
fact, on March 31st, 2017, I-85, a major thoroughfare right in
Atlanta, Georgia, which feeds seven counties, especially
commuter traffic, burned and had to be collapsed. And because
of the emergency powers that were available for emergencies,
this highway bridge was basically restored to the benefit of
the community in seven weeks ahead of schedule and below
budget.
Senator Boozman. Right. Right.
Secretary Chao. It can happen.
Senator Boozman. And again it can happen, saving money, and
then also the economic impact, you know, that not having then
just the hassle factor.
So thank you very much. Thank you for being here.
Secretary Chao. Thank you.
Senator Collins. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Secretary,
good to see you, and thank you for the phone call the other day
on the Boeing situation. I'll get to a question on that.
This afternoon, the Inspector General from the Department
of Transportation in testimony is going to say, ``While
revamping FAA's oversight process will be an important step,
continued management attention will be key to ensure the agency
identifies and monitors the highest risk areas of aircraft
certification.''
I'd like to address that management question for a moment.
I was glad that you called me on the Boeing situation because
we sent a letter to you and others have joined, but can you
comment on the fact that the President did not nominate a
person to fill the Federal Aviation Administration for 14
months?
Secretary Chao. Of course leadership is important, but
currently the FAA is led by a very able Deputy Administrator,
who is the Acting Administrator. He graduated from the Air
Force Academy, was a commercial pilot, was a military pilot,
and has also been in Washington and understands the policies.
Senator Durbin. Is he the new nominee?
Secretary Chao. He is not. The new nominee has just been
announced. But let me also say that the previous FAA
Administrator from the previous Administration stayed on until
January 8th, 2018.
Senator Durbin. It is unusual, is it not, for an agency
that's accepting the responsibility for the safety of aircraft
in America has a vacancy and a deputy administrator or
designated administrator for 14 months? Isn't that unusual?
Secretary Chao. I guess it is more unusual. But in this
Administration, there's been quite a slowdown in nominations on
both sides.
Senator Durbin. Well, I know that I was expecting that for
a variety of reasons, but this is situation where the President
didn't send a nominee to an agency with that responsibility.
So may I ask you on the infrastructure question? Every time
I go back home, without fail this is the first item I'm asked
about is infrastructure. People are focused on it. They're
wondering when this Federal Government is going to come around
to the realization that we have to do something and at this
point in time with the gas tax by gallon that has been in place
now for 26 years, I'm guessing, and not enough money coming
into the Highway Trust Fund because of a variety of factors, it
appears that absent some significant commitment by Congress and
the President, we're not going to solve this problem.
We have more and more fuel efficient cars and trucks
burning fewer gallons of gas, more and more electric vehicles,
and yet the demands for infrastructure continue to grow apace.
So I was heartened by your response to Senator Coons
earlier about everything's on the table. I don't want to
mischaracterize what you said but that's what I concluded, that
everything's on the table.
Can you give us a time table about when we can expect
honest negotiations to go forward on infrastructure?
Secretary Chao. I think it's an issue that we all need to
discuss because we have surface reauthorization coming up. So
does it make sense to have two vehicles, an infrastructure bill
and a surface reauthorization?
Given the compressed timeframe, it may very well be that
there should be--it's easier for everyone, ourselves as well as
the Congress, Senate and the House, to have one vehicle and
that perhaps should be the surface reauthorization bill.
Senator Durbin. And are you going to convene the
appropriate parties to start this conversation?
Secretary Chao. Well, I think we have certainly learned
from the past that such a project should not be done in
isolation, but done in consultation with the Congress. I am
certainly a believer.
Senator Durbin. That I think is a great idea, and let me
also add that the President has said on his own, he's said many
things, but on his own, he has said that what we now
characterize as congressional-directed spending was a good
idea, and I happen to believe it was a key to passing an
infrastructure bill and moving things forward.
Does the Administration or do you have an opinion when it
comes to so-called congressional-directed spending as part of
this process?
Secretary Chao. Well, the President has said that. I agree
with the President.
Senator Durbin. That's good news. Thank you, Madam
Secretary.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
geez, I'm giving you a promotion here now.
Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Chairman Collins and Ranking
Member Reed, for holding this hearing, and thank you, Secretary
Chao, for appearing before this subcommittee.
I also want to thank you for the work you've done on
focusing on the needs of transportation in rural states, like
Montana. Discretionary grants, such as BUILD, have had a
tremendous impact on our state, but it's important we also
continue to focus on the importance of formula funding.
I want to talk more about the electronic logging devices.
Secretary Chao, when I'm back home in Montana, it's one of the
greatest concerns I hear related to red tape and burdensome
Federal regulations. It's this mandate on electronic logging
devices. It's something I've discussed many times.
This issue is raised about every meeting I have across the
state, whether it's in Great Falls or Miles City, particularly
from our AG community. Our Number 1 economic driver in Montana
is agriculture. It's ranchers. It's livestock haulers. It's
wool growers. It's seed potato farmers. It's honey producers.
They've all raised concerns about this ELD mandate and its
impact on their ability to get their products to market
efficiently and, importantly, safely.
We see this one-size-fits-all regulation having harmful
effects on Montana's farmers and ranchers and across the
trucking and AG industries.
Thankfully, through the leadership of many, including
myself, we've been able to delay the mandate for our livestock
and AG haulers and will do so again this year. I'm pleased to
see (FMCSA) Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration looking
at hours of service regulations. That process, as you know, is
going to take many months or even years to complete.
So my question is, what are you doing presently to find a
workable solution for our farmers, our ranchers, our small
businesses regarding the ELD mandate and the hours of service
regulations?
Secretary Chao. Actually, that's a very good question. We
have been listening to the concerns of Senators like yourself
about the ELD. We have given waivers on meritorious grounds for
hardship.
We have also gone out with an Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. The public comment ended on October 10th. We have
over 5,200 comments, and FMCSA is evaluating them and deciding
what to do next.
But I will have to ask them what they are doing currently
to address this while this is ongoing.
Senator Daines. Thank you.
Secretary Chao. I will get an answer back to you.
Senator Daines. Yes, and thank you for listening to Rural
America. These farmers and ranchers sometimes wonder if their
voice is ever heard in Washington, D.C., and I want to thank
you for listening to them and their comments. It's very, very
important to our Number 1 industry in Montana which is
agriculture.
I want to shift gears and talk about another important
connectivity issue, whether it's trucking, this time it's
airports. Airports in Montana have seen rapid growth over the
last decade with many an expanding service.
Unfortunately, the Contract Tower Program doesn't provide
the flexibility needed to expand tower staffing. In fact, our
busiest airport is Bozeman. That's my hometown in fact. It has
nearly one and a half million passengers, over 91,000 tower
operations annually. It had to pay for a full-time controller
out of their own budget. Missoula is nearing the point where
they're going to have to do the same thing.
The question is, why are these airports required to locally
contribute so much financially to what is a government
function, and what could we do, what could you do to add
flexibility to the program so they don't have to continue to
bear that substantial financial burden?
Secretary Chao. Well, the total funding requested for the
Contract Tower Program in our current budget is $169 million.
So it fully funds all the towers participating in the program.
There is a volume factor that determines whether a contract
tower extends its hours where therefore the FAA bears the cost.
So this is an issue where if they don't meet the minimum, which
I think is 10 per hour or something like that, the FAA does not
extend the hours. We can talk with you about that.
Senator Daines. Yeah. We'd like to work with you to get
some more flexibility there because we want to incentivize
these contract tower operations to have some flexibility there
because we're saving the taxpayer dollars with these contract
towers and we'll work with your team on that to give us
flexibility so we don't have the out-of-pocket costs coming
from our airports.
Last question is another connectivity question. It's
Amtrak. Of course, connectivity is a big deal for states like
Montana. We're off the beaten path. We rely on the Amtrak,
particularly on the High Line. Recent nears relating to Amtrak
limiting or eliminating long distance services are troubling.
We've removed ticket agents from Selby, from Havre, and it
impacts our communities directly. The Empire Builder is where
my great-great grandma came out to Montana on in fact years
ago.
Question is, what can you and Amtrak do to continue to meet
the needs of these rural communities who are just
disproportionately affected with reductions in Amtrak and
ensure they continue to have the access to this national
network?
Secretary Chao. Well, the Federal Government funds Amtrak
to the tune of about $1.5 billion a year. So I know that the
President of Amtrak, Richard Anderson, is very concerned about
the viability of long distance.
They do capture the dreams, you know. It's kind of rare.
Travel is very important. But there's also a subsidy cost per
head. So I think Amtrak is trying to reassess how best to
address the needs of these rural communities and maintain
mobility, but also think of some other way to reduce the
subsidy.
So one of the ways that they've tried to do it is through
Restoration and Enhancement Grants. They've taken half of the
National Network Grant that was enacted last year and put it
into Restoration and Enhancement Grants. They want to negotiate
with state governments to see whether the states can be phased
into taking a larger local share.
Obviously this is going to have to depend on lawmakers
agreeing and if legislators don't agree with it, well, then
this won't go any place. But that was the original intent
because a lot of times travelers, passengers, they don't go all
the way from Chicago to California. They go partway.
So it's not usage of the entire long distance route, and I
think Amtrak is thinking could there be some other alternative
for these shorter hauls to meet the mobility, and
transportation needs of these rural communities.
Senator Daines. I'm out of time, Secretary Chao. Thank you.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Chairman Collins,
Ranking Member Reed, and thank you both for your very hard work
on the fiscal year 2019 Spending Bill that I think you did a
really excellent job and made new investments and we all
appreciate it.
Before I begin my questions, Madam Secretary, I would like
to make a quick statement on the grounding of the Boeing 737
Max planes.
Nothing is more important than the safety of our families
and our travelers and I know the DOT and FAA are working with
Boeing to take steps to determine what exactly went wrong.
I understand your department has created a task force to
examine the process by which new planes are certified for use
and I look forward to seeing your findings so we make sure that
nothing like that happens again, and I would like to ask you to
continue to work as transparently as possible and to keep us in
the loop on any new information or developments that occur.
Secretary Chao. I will do so.
Senator Murray. I would appreciate that.
Secretary Chao, we have spoken several times about a
constituent of mine, Allison, who bravely told me about being
sexually assaulted on a long distance flight and in the past
year, I've heard more and more disturbing reports of sexual
assaults occurring on airplanes.
The Association of Flight Attendants conducted a survey of
nearly 2,000 flight attendants and found one out of five flight
attendants have experienced a report of passenger-on-passenger
sexual assault while working on a flight and that's why I
worked last year to include language requiring the
establishment of the National In-Flight Sexual Assault Task
Force in both the 2018 appropriations legislation and in the
FAA reauthorization, and while I really do appreciate that the
first meeting of the task force is happening soon, I am very
concerned that delays, including the delay from the shutdown,
have slowed down its development.
I'm also very concerned that key stakeholders I have worked
with and heard from are not included in the task force. In
particular, I have been in touch with Allison, who recently got
a letter saying that she was not being invited as part of the
task force, and I really think that is a true shame.
She's been a strong advocate for making meaningful change
so that others don't go through what she experienced, and she
also told me that the only offer of any sort she received from
the task force was to submit a letter. That is not the type of
real best engagement with the task force I had hoped the
survivors would have.
I wanted to ask you, can you tell me how you do plan to
ensure that all stakeholders who are interested in helping to
solve these problems will be able to work with the task force?
Secretary Chao. I want to assure you that this is an issue
that is important, that no one should have to worry about
sexual assault or harassment when taking a flight, any flight
of any duration.
So because of the strong commitment, we did establish the
task force, the National In-Flight Sexual Misconduct Task
Force, with your leadership, as well. We have structured it so
that it can act quickly and that certain information can be
held confidential.
There is a way in which people can participate and we can
provide more information to your staff on that, as well.
Senator Murray. Well, I would appreciate it if you would
provide more information, but I think it is important for us to
tell Allison, who has started this and has worked so hard on
it, that she is more than just a letter to the committee, that
her input--and she's worked on this very long and very hard
with me and with a number of people.
So I would like to have your staff talk with us to see that
we can get her better involved and all survivors, be a voice
for all survivors.
Let me pivot quickly to the Capital Investments Grant
Program. I want to thank you for completing the Lynnwood Link
Full Funding Grant Agreement in December, which will allow that
project to move forward and begin construction, and I want to
acknowledge the President's fiscal year 2020 Budget Request
funding for new projects, which is a significant departure from
years past and more accurately reflects the bipartisan
commitment to this program.
It is critical that the State Grants Program is properly
executed and projects are moved through this in a timely
fashion and one of those projects I did want to call to your
attention is the Federal Way Link Extension.
This budget request states, ``The Capital Investment Grant
Program should focus on projects with high non-Federal funding
commitments and currently Sound Transit is working with the
Federal Transit Administration to advance this Federal Way Link
Extension to a full funding grant agreement this year.''
That project is requesting only 25 percent Federal share
and Sound Transit's total capital budget calls for a total
Federal share of just 16 percent.
Is that the type of project that meets the Administration's
criteria?
Secretary Chao. I can't give you an answer right now, but
I've said a number of times in this hearing we're not holding
anything back. These are complicated projects. They need to
meet certain milestones, and I'll be more than glad to provide
an update.
Senator Murray. Okay. Well, I would appreciate a response
back on that.
And then Sound Transit has also submitted to enter into the
engineering phase on the Federal Way Link Extension back in
early October 2018, as they've been waiting approval to enter
this next phase since December, and in order to maintain the
budget for the 25 percent Federal share project, it's essential
that they stay on schedule.
So if you can give me an update on that, as well, I would
really appreciate it.
Secretary Chao. I'm pleased to.
Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Senator.
Madam Secretary, I want to return to an issue that I raised
in my opening statement about the inadequate funding for the
training vessel for state maritime academies.
As you're well aware, in fiscal year 2018, we provided $300
million for a new training ship for New York's Maritime Academy
and in this past bill in fiscal year 2019, we provided another
$300 million for Massachusetts, and according to the
department, using an identical design to replace each training
vessel helps achieve significant cost savings with each
additional ship and there's a learning curve, but no one is
suggesting that you could achieve cost savings to make up for
the delta that is in this year's budget for the ship that is
designated for Maine Maritime Academy.
The Administration cites the lower number of students
enrolled at Maine Maritime Academy compared to other state
maritime academies in order to justify its proposal, but what
we found after further discussions with OMB, which offered that
justification, and with the State Maritime Academy is that this
fails to recognize the right measure.
What matters is that the Maine Maritime Academy has
virtually the same number of Coast Guard-licensed graduates as
Massachusetts or, for that matter, California and therefore the
same training needs because these cadets need training at sea.
So when you look at the number of cadets that need training
at sea in order to get their unlimited Coast Guard license,
it's the same virtually in Massachusetts as it is in the state
of Maine.
So OMB seems to have been operating under a completely
wrong assumption in coming up with the funding of only $205
million.
It simply doesn't make sense to change the size of the
training vessel when the Administration last year supported the
request for the training ship for Massachusetts having the same
number of cadets that need that training at sea.
I would just ask again for your commitment to work with us
in finding a path forward so that MARAD doesn't have to go back
to the drawing board, spend an enormous amount of time and
money in designing a whole new ship, when in fact the
appropriate metric is how many cadets in the academy need at-
sea training and that is the same for Maine as it was for
Massachusetts.
Secretary Chao. Senator, I hope Maine knows what an
advocate they have in you because every time that we talk,
you're always advocating for your state, and the latest example
is with this school ship.
Your arguments and the points that you made, are very good
ones and I look forward to working with you on it.
Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
I want to switch to the issue of positive train control. As
you know in 2018, there was a bad accident in Washington State
that would have been prevented had positive train control been
installed on that train.
Last December, the department announced a real milestone,
that all 41 railroads that are required to implement positive
train control systems had met the statutory requirements to
qualify for a little additional time, but they had installed
the necessary hardware and made sufficient progress in testing
positive train control.
I do want to share with you a conversation that I had not
on a train but on an airplane with the head of the union for
railroad signalmen in the state of Maine and he raised the
issue of training.
He said that the trains have done a very good job of
getting installed the software and doing the testing but that
they haven't done as much training of personnel that they need
to do.
So I just wanted to pass that on to you and to ask for you
to look into the training issue, as well.
Obviously the software is key, the testing is key, but we
need to make sure that the personnel, the railroad signalmen
and others involved receive the appropriate training that they
need.
Secretary Chao. Well, I totally agree.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Secretary Chao. The world is getting more complicated.
Technology is rushing ahead so quickly, and training is very
important.
Senator Collins. And finally, I want to bring up to you
another airplane incident. It involved a small aircraft, a
commuter airline in Prescott, Maine, and this is our most
northern commercial airport in the state of Maine.
On March 4th, a small aircraft, which was coming from
Newark and operated, I believe, by United Express, landed very
roughly at the Prescott Airport on its second attempt at
landing. It hit the ground. It bounced numerous times. Three
people were injured, two passengers and a crew member, and the
plane experienced substantial damage.
I've read the preliminary report from the National
Transportation Safety Board and what it tells us is that the
United Express airplane landed between Runway 1 and the Taxiway
A in light or moderate snow. This wasn't one of our huge
snowstorms that we get. So it was particularly disturbing and
frightening that this happened.
It also happened after the aircraft had conducted a missed
approach. So this was the second attempt to land. The flight
was found to have aligned right of the Runway 1 during both
approaches.
So this was a very disturbing incident, and we very much
appreciated the very prompt report that the National
Transportation Safety Board did.
My question is, what happens after a report like this? I
don't know what the process is. I was very happy that the NTSB
immediately sent up investigators. They identified that there
had been two faulty attempts at landing that severely damaged
the aircraft and caused three injuries, but I don't know what's
the next step.
Could you either today or for the record give me
information on what happens next to ensure that this kind of
preventable accident doesn't happen again?
Secretary Chao. Senator, I have actually seen pictures from
that accident, and it surprises me that you said it was a light
snowstorm in Maine. I thought it was quite heavy.
But the point is, what is the FAA doing to help airports
that are located in severe weather regions how to handle
incidents such as this?
There's, of course, ground control, ground-based instrument
landing systems, but that's affected by the snow and the
accumulation of snow. The satellite-based systems are much
better and the FAA is supposed to be working with the airport
on investments in both systems and they're supposed to be
working with the airport to take advantage of both types of
technology.
Your question is a good one. I will go and see, but they're
supposed to be working with the airport and I thought that's
what they were doing, but I will check on that.
Senator Collins. Thank you very much.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank
you, Madam Secretary, for your testimony today.
We've all been shocked with the scenes from the Midwest of
the massive flooding and devastation and it has affected the
livelihood, the lives of the thousands and thousands of our
fellow Americans.
We will respond. We must respond with emergency support and
will have to rebuild bridges and rebuild roads, but we want to
make sure we do it in a sustainable way because these used to
be sort of one-off experiences.
When you have a hundred-year flood every 3 years, you've
got to wonder what's going on, and one of the aspects of this
is the fact that in 2017, the Administration took out,
eliminated the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard, which
was a guideline for reconstructing bridges and infrastructure
so they could be sustainable given the climate change effects
and that basically invites some states, particularly under
fiscal pressure, to simply put up what they had before, not
take into consideration the climate effects, the changing
aspects of this.
And this issue of climate is not just the Midwest, though
that's the current disaster, and again we are absolutely
sympathetic with the people that are suffering out there, but
we were talking about the Northeast Corridor.
If you ride the train from here to Providence, Rhode
Island, you will go past coastline which is being slowly eroded
by rising seas. You'll go through areas where the wetlands are
becoming more and more threatening to the tracks. That's going
to be a huge cost that Amtrak will have to face.
So the point is, how will you and the department ensure
that these transportation projects are built and properly
located and designed to withstand what we know is coming, the
effects of climate change and rising waters?
Secretary Chao. Well, I think the resiliency of
infrastructure is very important, to be prepared for natural
disasters of any sort, and so we need to work to ensure that
infrastructure projects are able to meet these unusual
circumstances.
The Federal Highways Administration has supported pilot
projects to see how we can increase resiliency and I think FHWA
has supported about 40 resiliency pilot projects across the
country. They've initiated 11 state and metropolitan pilot
projects focused on making transportation more resilient and
more durable.
Senator Reed. Well, I appreciate that, but again we will
be, we have to rebuild all these structures in the Midwest and
not just in the Midwest, all across the country, and if we
don't have the governing rule, then pilot projects are helpful
but they won't be decisive.
So I'd urge you to move either to re-evaluate the decision
to repeal the regulation or guidance or to put in new more
effective guidance in your view.
Let me change topics for a moment. You probably might be
aware that we suffered up in Rhode Island a gas outage
affecting 10,000 Rhode Islanders, in Newport, in Middletown,
and Portsmouth, and we have been working with the Pipeline
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), to
understand how it happened. It was a multistate occurrence. So
there is involvement in the Federal Government as well as the
local government.
Could you give us an update on what you've learned to date
on the pending investigation of what went wrong and what we
have to correct?
Secretary Chao. PHMSA is extremely experienced and
professional and their highly-trained inspectors concluded that
the high customer demand for natural gas during the stretch of
extreme cold, combined with an emergency shutdown of a
liquefied natural gas facility, created conditions leading to
the outage.
PHMSA actually doesn't regulate gas supply matters. But
because the Rhode Island Governor, your governor, declared a
state of emergency, PHMSA staff immediately reached out to the
Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities and Carriers and
tried to work with them.
Senator Reed. This raises, I think, a more general issue
not just for Rhode Island but these pipelines are old,
particularly interstate pipelines, and PHMSA has regulatory
authority because of the interstate nature.
Then you have state public utility commissions in Rhode
Island and in other states. Usually the responsibility is
shared in some respects. In fact, we're told some of the
problems occurred in a Massachusetts site but it affected Rhode
Island and not Massachusetts.
So one of the things I think we have to do is develop a
standard procedure where PHMSA is working with state utility
commissions in a proactive way, not just simply reactive, and I
appreciate them coming to the assistance of Rhode Island.
Secretary Chao. And we're still working with them.
Senator Reed. Yes, and so that when there is an outage,
it's almost like maybe the analogy we've been talking about all
morning, the NTSB, where when something happens, they're there
on the ground. They're coordinating the response, almost FEMA-
like, too. When something happens, FEMA's on the ground with
the local emergency management.
It's just this incident--frankly, we're very fortunate in
Rhode Island, there were no casualties as there were a few
weeks before that in Massachusetts where there was a gas
explosion. So we're very grateful for that. But 10,000 people
were without heat. A major city in the state closed down for
several weeks.
I think we do have to have much more of a coherent and
constant coordination between PHMSA and the state utility
commissions and I would urge you to look into that.
Secretary Chao. I understand.
Senator Reed. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank
you very much. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Secretary Chao, thank you so much for joining us today. As
you could see from the number of members who attended, there is
great interest in the budget that you've presented and also in
the crashes which we have discussed today.
We very much appreciate your forthright testimony and your
being here with us today.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
The hearing record will remain open for the submission of
additional questions, I suspect both the Ranking Member and I
will have a few to send your way, until next Friday, April 5th,
2019.
Secretary Chao. Thank you.
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
highway investments
Question. I am concerned that the Administration's budget once
again offers no proposals for our nation's highway system once the FAST
Act expires at the end of fiscal year 2020. Our states need certainty
so they can plan future transportation projects not an abandonment of
our duty to foster interstate commerce. The lack of a long-term plan
with stable revenue puts American infrastructure on an impossible
trajectory. The American Society of Civil Engineers has determined a
backlog of more than $4.5 trillion in needed infrastructure investments
in their most recent 2017 report card.
Madam Secretary, is the Administration developing a plan to provide
needed, increased investments in infrastructure?
Answer. Infrastructure continues to be a priority for the
Administration.
The 2020 Budget commits to working with the Congress on a long-term
surface transportation reauthorization to provide our State, local, and
private partners the certainty they need to effectively plan and
deliver projects. In addition, the Budget provides $200 billion for
other infrastructure priorities, across a range of infrastructure
sectors, to be allocated in partnership with the Congress. The Budget
also makes targeted investments in the BUILD and INFRA grant programs,
and a competitive highway bridge program.
The President has repeatedly stated that when it comes to
infrastructure investment, all options are on the table. As we approach
the expiration of the FAST Act on September 30, 2020, we look forward
to working with our partners in Congress to address the structural
insolvency of the surface transportation programs funded out of the
Highway Trust Fund.
fmcsa bus lease and interchange rule
Question. On September 20, 2018, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to
revise a prior 2015 final rule on the lease and interchange of
commercial passenger vehicles. This followed the filing of multiple
petitions by the passenger motor carrier industry in 2015 and a notice
published by FMCSA on August 31, 2016, announcing its intent to revise
the rule. Rather than finalizing this new rulemaking that has industry
and stakeholder input, DOT has simply continued to delay compliance
with the 2015 rule.
Since the comment period ended last fall for a revised rule, can
you provide a timeframe for when FMCSA will complete this rulemaking
and publish a new final rule?
Answer. The comment period for the NPRM ended on November 19, 2018.
The Department is working on the final rule and expects the rule to be
published this summer.
dot oig report on information security
Question. The Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002,
known as FISMA, requires inspectors general to conduct annual reviews
of their agencies information security programs. According to the most
recent IG report, DOT's 471 IT systems have significant deficiencies
that place DOT's information systems at increased risk and make them a
target for malicious attackers. For example, DOT has not transitioned
all of its information systems to use of multifactor user identity
authentication and many DOT systems do not require use of personal
identity verification, or PIV, cards. The lack of user identity
authentication and access control may lead to unauthorized access to
DOT's information systems.
Madam Secretary, how will DOT improve its I.T. security posture and
ensure that unauthorized personnel are not accessing DOT's information
systems?
Answer. To improve its I.T. Security posture, the Department began
multiple lines of effort starting in fiscal year 2018, planned to
extend through fiscal year 2020. Foundationally, the Office of the
Chief Information Officer (OCIO) initiated its ``Destinations Digital''
transformation initiative to re-envision and re-align IT procurement,
management and operations for improved efficiencies, outcomes, and
security as a result of improved resource management, controls, and
oversight.
The Department also initiated an acquisition effort for a multiple-
award, enterprise-wide cybersecurity contract which it expects to award
in fiscal year 2019, with the goal of standardizing practices, reducing
duplication of effort, and consolidating the visibility into--and
management of--cybersecurity risks associated with DOT systems.
And lastly, the Department will continue its investment in
infrastructure and capability enhancements including: completion of a
network modernization initiative that provides a software-defined
network with improved cybersecurity monitoring and controls, a secure
enterprise cloud architecture to host migrated and new DOT mission
systems and applications, enhanced vulnerability assessment and
management tools and services, and improvements to endpoint security on
DOT desktops, laptops, and servers to provide earlier detection,
alerting, and automated mitigation of unauthorized activity.
Addressing the imperative to reduce the risk of unauthorized
personnel accessing DOT systems, the Department has made it a
requirement for personnel to use multi-factor authentication via their
Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards to access DOT networks,
achieving 100 percent mandatory privileged access using a PIV card, and
98 percent mandatory unprivileged access, as of the first quarter of
fiscal year 2019. Continued attention on closing the remaining 2
percent gap will address technical issues and use cases that are
currently impeding the Department from achieving a full 100 percent of
mandatory PIV usage for unprivileged users.
The Department also established a production agreement with GSA for
use of its Login.gov strong authentication shared service, and has
deployed the service in support of multiple DOT websites and systems.
Subsequent efforts in fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2020 will
evaluate and implement additional upgrades to Departmental
authentication and authorization infrastructure to improve controls and
visibility in order to detect anomalous or unauthorized access, and to
improve and automate the assignment, revocation, and management of
access to DOT networks and systems.
Lastly, the Department will re-evaluate its current use of
encryption technology, and will work to improve the use of encryption
where appropriate in order to better protect information at rest and in
motion. Specific attention will be given to agency high-value asset
systems, and to known repositories of sensitive information.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
foothills parkway
Question. The Foothills Parkways was authorized by Congress in 1944
to be a 72-mile scenic parkway. Today, there are 33.5 miles Foothills
Parkway that are unfinished.
In 2002, the National Park Service--working with the Department of
Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration conducted an
analysis for the cost of competition of these 33.5 miles and the
National Park Service estimated it would cost over $250 million--or
$7.5 million per mile--to complete.
Could you give me a preliminary estimate of how much it would cost
today to build the remaining 33.5 miles of the Foothills Parkway? Could
you also briefly explain what steps the National Park Service and the
Federal Highway Administration would have to take to complete the
Foothills Parkway, and provide a tentative timeline?
Answer. The preliminary estimate for the total cost to complete the
remaining 33.5 miles of the Foothills Parkway is $660 million. It is
estimated that it would take approximately 10 years to complete the
Foothills Parkway.
This timeline includes the following steps with approximated
durations: 1 year for field investigations, 2 years to complete a
conceptual design and the NEPA process (contingent on being able to do
one Environmental Impact Statement for the 3 remaining segments instead
of 3 separate planning documents), 3 years for final design and
permitting, and 4 years for construction.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
complete streets
Question. Madam Secretary under your leadership the Department of
Transportation has started implementing Fixing America's Transportation
Act policies, the FAST Act, with states and local municipalities taking
into account future forms of mobility, including electric scooters and
dockless bicycles. In doing so your department has truly served as a
partner with those communities and lawmakers on the ground. As you
know, consumer-demand along with innovation continues to drive a more
diversified market for new forms of micro- and multimodal mobility
options on our streets. This demand, however, needs to be coupled with
policies, such as the Complete Streets program as authorized in the
FAST Act, that embrace new forms of transportation while also ensuring
for the safety and convenience for all users of a transportation
system.
How will your department further incentivize states, metropolitan
organizations (MPOs), and local jurisdictions to implement complete
streets-compliant plans and projects?
Answer. The Department supports and encourages Complete Streets
that enable safe use and mobility for all modes of travel, whether by
automobile, walking, bicycle, or transit. Implementation of Complete
Streets ensures that the entire right-of-way is planned, designed, and
operated to provide safe access and mobility for all users. This helps
to make streets safe and accessible for people of all ages and
abilities in both urban and rural communities.
In response to Section 1442 of the FAST Act, the Department issued
a Safety for All Users report, which discusses how State DOTs can
integrate policy and program approaches into their project planning,
development, and operations to overcome barriers and improve safety for
all users of the surface transportation network. The Department also
provided technical assistance to nine State DOTs (Delaware, Iowa,
Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
and Virginia) through workshops designed to help them build internal
capacity to plan, design, construct, operate, and maintain context-
sensitive transportation networks that are safe for all roadway users.
Departmental modes have worked collaboratively to develop resources
and training to promote Complete Streets concepts and improve safety.
Recently, the Department shared information on its new Bikeway
Selection Guide; a resource that assists transportation planners to
make informed decisions about trade-offs relating to the selection of
bikeway types. The Department also supports the Every Day Counts
initiative Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP), which
includes an innovation that is focused on reducing pedestrian
fatalities at uncontrolled crossing locations and un-signalized
intersections. Additionally, the Department has developed a variety of
resources, including guidance on creating multimodal performance
measures to track progress, and on accelerating multimodal project
delivery.
Planning efforts and projects that help implement Complete Streets
are eligible under a wide variety of surface transportation program
funding sources, both discretionary and formula-based. By providing
funding opportunities as well as technical assistance and information
on planning, design, and implementation, the Department is
incentivizing delivery of Complete Streets projects.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Boozman
drug-impaired driving
Question. Secretary Chao, as you are well aware, we are seeing an
uptick of drug-impaired driving in the U.S. with marijuana
legalization, not to mention, the opioid crisis. I applaud your team at
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in
particular Deputy Administrator Heidi King, for making this a priority.
Would you address your fiscal year 20 drugged driving initiatives
from a safety perspective and talk about the need for more research on
this issue?
Answer. Thank you, Senator Boozman, for your recognition of this
important safety priority. Drug-impaired driving has joined alcohol-
impaired driving as a serious safety concern on our highways, and
that's why the Department of Transportation is supporting the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) initiative to raise
public awareness and strengthen the tools to reduce drug-impaired
driving on our roadways.
NHTSA is spearheading safety initiatives to: 1) build public
engagement to discourage drug-impaired driving; 2) strengthen state and
local programs that combat drug-impaired driving; and 3) advance the
state of knowledge related to all forms of impairment that impair
drivers.
To raise public awareness and encourage safe driving behaviors,
NHTSA has launched a media campaign and has been working with partners
and stakeholders to reach into diverse communities to highlight the
importance of reducing drug-impaired driving.
To strengthen state and local programs, NHTSA organized dialogues
with local leaders and experts across the country to hear about these
issues, and to facilitate the sharing of best practices, lessons
learned, and other tools. Further, NHTSA has made available additional
grant funds to support law enforcement training.
Because of the number, and combinations of, impairing substances
identified in drivers, the complexity of drug-impairment is
unprecedented and NHTSA research planning efforts are underway. The
fiscal year (FY) 2020 budget requests $5 million for the drug-impaired
driving program, an increase of $3.48 million from fiscal year 2019
requested levels. The requested levels are intended to support the
Drug-Impaired Driving Initiative launched on January 25, 2018. The
focus of the program is to: 1) understand the relationship between drug
use and crash risk through research; and 2) employ countermeasures,
such as training for law enforcement and other criminal justice
professionals, and public education.
The initiative will also provide increased drug-impaired driving
education and training for all segments of the criminal justice system,
expand the national media campaign on drug-impaired driving, and
develop new resources and technical assistance to strengthen State and
community drug-impaired driving programs.
As the only Federal agency mandated to improve driving safety,
NHTSA must be able to provide accurate and reliable data for planning,
evaluation and research purposes. Funding will support critical
research needed to better understand how drug use and impairment impact
driver safety. It is vitally important that law enforcement and
toxicologists have reliable methods to detect drug use and driver
impairment.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Steve Daines
airport improvement program funding
Question. Many, if not all, of the airports in Montana have applied
for supplemental AIP funding to help with expansion.
Could you provide a timeline on when those decisions can be
expected?
Answer. The FAA awarded a first round of grants (worth
approximately $205 million) from the fiscal year 2018 supplemental AIP
funding to airports in 34 states in late September 2018. We are now
actively engaged in reviewing 2,652 requests totaling more than $10.9
billion for the second and final round, for which $789 million remains
available. These proposals include 71 requests from airports in
Montana, totaling more than $232 million.
At the same time, the FAA is working to implement the $3.2 billion
regular AIP grant program for fiscal year 2019, which must be obligated
by the end of September 2019. This year's program also involves making
changes in the entitlement formulas based on the FAA Reauthorization
Act of 2018.
The FAA hopes to begin making decisions on the remaining fiscal
year 2018 supplemental funding later this spring, in close coordination
with the regular fiscal year 2019 AIP grant program.
Since 2013, the FAA has provided more than $233 million in AIP
grants to Montana airports, including more than $59 million in
discretionary funding.
helena approach control radar
Question. As you likely know, Helena is one of only two FAA towers
in the country that does not have approach control radar, and I am
pleased to have secured language in FAA Reauthorization last Congress
to finally secure that coverage.
What is the status of getting that capability installed and
operational?
Answer. Consistent with Section 327 of the FAA Reauthorization Act
of 2018, the FAA has undertaken an evaluation to identify airports that
are currently served by FAA towers with nonradar approach and departure
control services. Helena has been identified as one of those airports.
We are now looking at the budgetary and flight volume considerations of
providing Helena with approach control radar services. In moving
forward, our considerations would include appropriate safety and
efficiency evaluations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Hoeven
bismarck airport--radar relocation
Question. As you know, the current stock of FAA airport
surveillance radars is aging. Forty (40) of the Airport Surveillance
Radar--8 (ASR-8) systems, which was originally fielded in the 1970's,
currently remain in use, including at the Bismarck International
Airport.
In 2004, the FAA had scheduled to upgrade the ASR-8 in Bismarck to
a digital ASR-11. However, in 2008, the Bismarck radar was cut from
FAA's radar replacement program and the airport continues to operate
the existing ASR-8 radar.
Nevertheless, the City of Bismarck spent millions of dollars
preparing a new radar site for development, and to this day desires the
ability to move forward on future commercial development close to the
airport without the existing radar-related impediments.
While I understand that the FAA no longer has a contract to
purchase new digital ASR-11 radar systems, will you, and the FAA,
continue to work with me and the City of Bismarck to relocate the
existing radar to a suitable location that will allow for commercial
development near the airport?
Answer. The FAA is committed to working with you and the city of
Bismarck to relocate the existing radar. The FAA has not allocated
funding for planning or implementation of this project because there is
no operational requirement to relocate the existing radar at Bismarck.
When an airport authority requires radars to be relocated, the work is
typically funded by the airport authority through a reimbursable
agreement. We have recently worked with airport authorities in New
Orleans, Chicago, Greensboro, and Charlotte to relocate radars via
reimbursable agreement. The FAA can work with you to develop an
estimate for the cost of relocating the radar systems at Bismarck.
The Bismarck facility consists of both an ASR-8 (primary radar)
with an associated antenna and a Mode Select (beacon radar) with
associated antenna. Relocating the primary and beacon radars systems
requires a leapfrog strategy to provide required services for Air
Traffic Control (ATC) operations during the transition period. By using
this strategy, ATC operations would be maintained with minimal impact.
The estimated timeline to perform necessary administrative,
technical and contracting processes (i.e. selection of final Bismarck
radar configuration, de-conflict site schedule, planning, radar siting
study, engineering design package, acquisition of land and materials,
etc.) is approximately 48 to 60 months to process and complete.
grand forks airport
Question. As you are aware, we have a widespread pilot shortage. I
have heard repeatedly from the heads of our Armed Forces--Air Force,
Navy, and Army--as well as from the commercial airline industry--
particularly the regional airlines that service rural America--that we
need more pilots.
The University of North Dakota in Grand Forks is the premier
institution for flight education and pilot training in the country. In
fact, the Grand Forks International Airport that is home to UND's
flight training, is consistently ranked as one of the top 25 busiest
airports in the country. Last year alone, UND students flew over
111,000 hours at the airport.
In order to meet the need for more pilots, the Airport is in the
process of finalizing their Airport Master Plan with the FAA, which
will seek to expand the airports capacity significantly, to enhance
safety, promote regional economic development, and increase pilot
training capacity.
Will you and the FAA continue to work with me and the Grand Forks
Airport to ensure that the airport's Master Plan is finalized and the
expansion project is greenlit so that we can continue to educate and
train the future of our nation's pilot workforce?
Answer. The FAA Office of Airports is working closely with the City
of Grand Forks (the airport sponsor) and the University of North Dakota
as the airport develops and implements their Airport Master Plan. The
FAA provided comments on the master plan in August of 2018. The airport
sponsor is reviewing our comments, making adjustments, and working to
submit revisions to the master plan in April 2019. The FAA continues to
work with the airport sponsor to identify a preferred development
option and a corresponding funding plan, including identifying AIP
eligible development as part of this overall plan.
An environmental analysis (Environmental Assessment) will be
required for any proposed airport expansion projects. This action will
likely occur in late 2019 or early 2020.
Question. Additionally, in last year's budget you requested $19.2
million for the replacement of air traffic control tower facilities,
and specifically allocated $1.8 million of that request for the design
phase of a replacement Air Traffic Control tower at Grand Forks
Airport. However, the fiscal year 20 request does not identify a
request for construction funding for the control tower in Grand Forks.
Can you provide me with a status update on the replacement of the
Air Traffic Control tower at Grand Forks International Airport? When do
you expect construction to begin?
Answer. The Federal Aviation Administration plans to start design
of the Grand Forks International Airport (GFK) airport traffic control
tower in fiscal year 2020. The agency intends to request construction
funding in a future budget year as the design matures.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
labor displacement resulting automated vehicle technology
Question. The widespread adoption of AV technology promises to
significantly reduce roadway fatalities and accidents caused by driver
error. However, numerous studies of the impending workforce impact
resulting from this technological shift project the loss of hundreds of
thousands of our nation's truck driving jobs. These concerns are
compounded because many truck drivers may not have the skills needed
for new jobs, live in areas where new jobs arise, or have bargaining
power to protect their long-term employment.
As part of $100 million provided for AV research and development,
the fiscal year 2018 Omnibus included $1.5 million for your department
to report on these potential workforce effects, the skills needed for
workers to adapt, and whether existing Federal employment and training
programs are sufficient to assist those displaced workers. Following
last year's budget hearing, you committed to working with the
Department of Labor (DOL) to finish this study; that report is now
overdue.
When do you intend to finish your analysis of the potential
workforce impact of AV adoption and publish the results of that study?
Answer. The Department of Transportation is working with the
Department of Labor on this study to better understand the impacts that
automated vehicles may have on the transportation sector and the
related workforce. The first phase of the Workforce Study focuses on
the long-haul trucking and transit bus sectors, while the second phase
will be expanded to include a broader set of driving occupations and
impacts to ancillary job categories. On March 20, 2019, the Department
of Transportation hosted an in-person workshop with relevant
stakeholders to receive their feedback on the study. We are in the
process of taking this feedback, incorporating them into the study, and
finalizing the report. The first phase of the study will result in a
report to Congress, which is expected this summer.
Question. In fiscal year 2018, Senator Collins and I also requested
that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) produce a similar
report. GAO recently released that report, finding that your department
and DOL need to convene a key group of stakeholders to gather
information on potential workforce changes, including needed skills and
information gaps, as AV technology evolves and to further analyze those
potential effects in order to inform any potential regulatory changes.
GAO also noted with disappointment that your department only plans to
finish its analysis with DOL, as was required in the fiscal year 2018
Omnibus, and does not plan to continue convening key groups as this
technology continues to evolve. However, in the most recent AV
voluntary guidance, your department did note that a transition strategy
needs to be developed to minimize adjustment costs for workers and to
provide the help needed to allow each dislocated worker to find
productive, high wage job opportunities.
Should we establish a taskforce to review the workforce impacts
stemming from AV adoption? Is your department committed to continuing
to work with DOL and other relevant departments in order to ensure that
these workers acquire skills needed to remain competitive in our
economy and to have access to middle class jobs?
Answer. The Department of Transportation has been a leader on the
topic of automation, as well as its impact on the transportation sector
and potential impacts to the American workforce.
As part of our commitment to an open, transparent policy
development process, the Department has focused on generating public
comment through the Federal Register on our policy and regulatory
initiatives, as well as by convening workshops as needed to gather
stakeholder input. The Department has conducted numerous stakeholder
events to ensure that the introduction of automated vehicles is done in
a manner that both maximizes safety and ensures minimal disruption to
society.
We remain committed to engaging in a robust manner with numerous
stakeholder groups, as well as with all relevant Federal Departments
and Agencies, to ensure that the American people are positioned to
succeed in an automated environment. As we continue this work, we will
continue to assess the best mechanisms for involving and incorporating
the feedback from the public and impacted stakeholders.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
buy america
Question. As part of the fiscal year 2019 Transportation
Appropriations Bill, Congress included language directing FHWA to act
on Buy America waiver requests within 60 days. While the merits of Buy
America are clear, there are times when projects require materials for
which there is no American-made alternative. Congress added this
language to ensure that Federal funds will not be held in limbo while
FHWA reviews waivers.
Can you provide the Committee your assurance that this direction
will be implemented?
Answer. The Department takes Buy America very seriously and
judiciously reviews each waiver requested. The Department notes that
the Buy America waiver process, established by law, requires an
informal public notice/comment period. This public notice and comment
period is followed by the legal requirement to publish a Federal
Register Notice formalizing the waiver decision.
airport improvement program funding
Question. Terminals at the Nation's airports need billions of
dollars in repairs in upgrades. Congress has appropriated significant
funds to supplement the FAA's traditional allocation of AIP funds.
Would you agree that terminals provide the space essential to
ensuring security in air travel?
Answer. The security aspect of terminal buildings is a critical
function for air travel. Our partners at the Department of Homeland
Security, specifically Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and
to some extent Customs and Border Patrol are primarily responsible for
passenger security. TSA funds the bulk of the equipment necessary for
screening passengers and their baggage. However, the FAA does provide
funding for terminal building projects to the extent permitted by
statute under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). During fiscal year
2018, we provided more than $174 million in regular AIP funding, plus
another $15.9 million from the supplemental appropriation, for
passenger terminal projects. These projects included funding the
passenger terminal building that TSA uses for screening passengers.
The FAA's authorizing statute permits us to fund airport passenger
terminals. Title 49 of U.S.C. Section 47119 specifically defines the
types of terminal development projects eligible for AIP funding. The
statute permits AIP funds to be used for passenger terminal projects,
including multimodal terminal development, in nonrevenue-producing,
public-use areas of a commercial service airport, provided specific
requirements and conditions are met.
From the FAA's perspective, safety is our mission. The AIP statute
reflects this mission by placing a significant emphasis on projects
that enhance an airports' airside safety for the benefit of both
travelers and people and property on the ground near airports. The
statute also places an emphasis on security of the airport; it permits
AIP funding of airport perimeter security fencing, security cameras,
and specific airport security equipment to include universal access
systems and emergency call boxes.
Question. Would you agree that terminals play an essential role in
the travel experience for consumers?
Answer. Terminals do play an essential role in the travel
experience. They not only provide travelers with access from the
landside to the airside of an airport, they also provide the critical
nexus for a broad array of services, ranging from parking, rental cars
and other types of ground transportation, concessions (including food,
beverage and retail), security screening, baggage handling, and several
other critical functions. In addition, the revenues generated within
the terminal and ground transportation areas can be critical to
supporting both capital and operating costs associated with other parts
of the airport, including a safe, efficient airfield as well as land
buffers and access and circulation roadways.
Question. Would you agree that the commerce exchanged at terminals
benefit both travelers and local economies?
Answer. The commerce conducted at terminals is beneficial in
numerous ways. Shops, restaurants, parking facilities, and concessions
such as rental cars in the terminal buildings create a broad range of
employment opportunities as well as direct and indirect economic
benefits. Revenues at terminals also help to offset the costs of
operating the airport, which may reduce airline operating costs.
Question. Given the important role terminals play in security and
air travel experience, would you support increasing the number of
airports that could utilize this supplemental pot of funding to finance
repairs and upgrades at their terminal buildings?
Answer. We appreciate the supplemental $1 billion that Congress
appropriated in fiscal year 2018, and the additional $500 million in
fiscal year 2019, to help fund AIP-eligible and justified projects.
From the FAA's perspective, safety is our mission. The AIP statute
reflects this mission by placing a significant emphasis on projects
that enhance an airports' airside safety for the benefit of both
travelers and people and property on the ground near airports. FAA's
2019--2023 NPIAS report includes estimated costs for projects needed to
maintain safety (including reconstruction and airfield standards
projects) that total more than $25.6 billion over this five-year
period, or an annual average of more than $5 billion.
Many airports (particularly the larger airports) have access to
other funding sources to assist with their terminal and air travel
experience projects--typically a combination of Passenger Facility
Charge (PFC) revenues, other airport revenues, debt financing
(typically in the form of long-term bonds), and (in certain
circumstances) either airline or third-party investors including
public-private partnerships.
build grants
Question. Congress has appropriated billions of dollars for the
TIGER and BUILD programs in recent years. Many of the awards from the
program have funded large infrastructure projects on interstate and
Federal highways. Our local communities have significant infrastructure
needs as well.
What steps is the Department taking to ensure that local, municipal
projects are funded in the BUILD Program?
Answer. The Department believes that local governments best know
the infrastructure needs of their communities, and encourages local
governments to submit BUILD applications that reflect those needs. The
Department reaches out to local and municipal governments as part of
the BUILD program's outreach and believes that awarding projects to a
variety or local and regional governments is a hallmark of the program.
My Department takes the needs of local communities very seriously, and
we are fully committed to ensuring that local governments receive full
consideration in future rounds of BUILD competition.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
capital investment grant program
Question. The Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program is the primary
Federal grant program to support transit investments in rapid rail,
light rail, bus rapid transit, commuter rail, and ferries. I worked to
include $2.644 billion, the highest ever annual appropriations, in the
fiscal year 2019 Omnibus for CIG to support ongoing and new transit
projects in Washington and throughout the nation. The fiscal year 18
and fiscal year 19 Budget Requests reduced funding for the CIG program,
despite Congress's bipartisan commitments of support over the last
several years. The Omnibus directs DOT to obligate $2.2 billion of this
funding by Dec. 2019, and to continue to administer the CIG program
according to current law. Though the Administration did better on CIG
in fiscal year 2020 by including $100 million for Lynnwood Link to
reflect the FFGA signing in December and nearly $500 million for
projects that are expected to sign FFGAs in fiscal year 2020 (fiscal
year 2018 and fiscal year 2019 requests eliminated CIG), DOT still must
ensure that projects are moving in a timely fashion.
Specifically, I want to flag for you a few projects in Washington
state:
--Sound Transit (ST): In December FTA signed the Lynnwood Link FFGA,
which commits the FTA to provide 36.0 percent of the funding.
The Lynnwood Link has received $100 million in the fiscal year
2017 Omnibus; and FTA apportioned an additional $100 million in
the fiscal year 2018 Omnibus. The fiscal year 2019
apportionments have not yet been made by the Administration.
--Sound Transit (ST): Building on the Lynnwood Light Rail FFGA, the
Federal Way Link Light Rail extension will extend Light Rail
from Angle Lake station in SeaTac south to Federal Way. The
Federal Way Extension is requesting only a 25 percent Federal
share, which is the lowest Federal share in the Capital
Investment Grant pipeline. The project is utilizing a design
build construction model that will allow ST to submit for a
Full Funding Grant Agreement shortly after receiving
Engineering Authority. The fiscal year 2020 New Starts Report
included a medium-high rating for the extension. Sound Transit
submitted for Engineering Authority on October 11th and was
expected to receive that authority in December. However, we are
still awaiting Engineering approval at present, and without
Engineering approval, ST is unable to submit the FFGA
documentation. This is problematic for two main reasons. First,
any delay to the project threatens the schedule and budget of
the project and with the Federal share locked, any costs due to
delay will be borne by Sound Transit. Second, the Federal Way
Extension represented the fourth and last TIFIA loan to close
under Sound Transit's Master Credit Agreement. Statutorily that
loan must close by mid-December of 2019 and FTA's practice is
to only close concurrent with the Federal Way Link Extension
FFGA signing.
Question. Secretary Chao, this year's budget request states that
the Capital Investment Grant Program should focus on projects with high
non-Federal funding commitments. Currently, Sound Transit in Washington
state is working with the Federal Transit Administration to advance the
Federal Way Link Extension to a full funding grant agreement this
fiscal year. That project is requesting only a 25 percent Federal share
and Sound Transit's total capital budget calls for a total Federal
share of just 16 percent.
Can you confirm this is the type of project that meets the
Administration's criteria? And if not, can you please explain why?
Answer. The proposed Capital Investment Grants (CIG) share for the
Federal Way project is indeed the lowest share proposed of any project
currently in the CIG program, although the dollar amount represented by
that percentage share is larger than most awards at $790 million. In
addition to the CIG grant funding being proposed, the project is
anticipating using $18 million in other Federal formula grant funds and
seeking a USDOT TIFIA loan of $629 million. The Department has been
very supportive of Sound Transit and its financing approaches for
multiple projects, including awarding the Lynnwood Link Full Funding
Grant Agreement just a few months ago that includes $1.17 billion in
CIG funding and a $657 million USDOT TIFIA loan.
Question. Secondarily, Sound Transit has submitted to enter into
the Engineering phase on the Federal Way Link Extension in early
October 2018 and has been awaiting approval to enter this next phase
since December.
In order to maintain the budget for this 25 percent Federal share
project, it is essential that the project stay on schedule.
I would appreciate an update on when I can expect that authority to
be forthcoming and the expected schedule for the full funding grant
agreement execution.
Answer. The Federal Transit Administration approved the Federal Way
project into the Engineering phase of the Capital Investment Grants
program on April 11, 2019. Sound Transit anticipates meeting the
requirements for receipt of a Full Funding Grant Agreement before the
end of 2019.
meal and rest breaks
Question. On Dec. 21, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) sided with the American Trucking Association
(ATA) in determining that California state laws on meal and rest break
requirements are preempted by Federal law. The decision by FMCSA defies
logic, particularly in light of the fact that arguments in support of
preemption in this instance have been rejected previously by: the U.S.
Department of Transportation (the Department), in response to a nearly
identical request by the trucking industry in 2008; the courts,
including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S.
Supreme Court (which declined to hear appeals in multiple cases); and
Congress, despite multiple opportunities since 2015, including periods
with Republican majorities in both the U.S. House of Representatives
and the U.S. Senate.
Washington state is one of 20 states and territories that require
motor carriers to provide minimum meal and rest breaks to truck
drivers. Unfortunately, these laws are now jeopardized by FMCSA's
ruling. This is a matter of critical importance, and it stands to have
a dramatic impact on the rights of states like mine to protect the
safety of the public, our highway system, and the well-being of
commercial truck drivers.
Why has the Department chosen to abandon its own position, to
disregard the will of Congress, and ignore court precedent in order to
side with the ATA?
Answer. FMCSA believes that its decision preempting California's
MRB rules, as applied to drivers of property-carrying commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs) subject to FMCSA's hours or service (HOS) regulations,
is an important step toward creating a more reliable and consistent
regulatory environment for truck drivers. A consistent set of rules
directly benefits drivers, consumers, small businesses, and the
American economy.
As FMCSA explained in its December 28 Federal Register notice (83
FR 67470), the California meal and rest break rules (MRB rules) are
State laws or regulations ``on commercial motor vehicle safety,'' to
the extent they apply to drivers of property-carrying CMVs subject to
the HOS rules. The MRB rules are in addition to or more stringent than
the HOS rules; they have no safety benefit beyond what the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations provide; they are incompatible with
the HOS rules; Enforcement of the MRB rules causes an unreasonable
burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly, the MRB rules meet all the
statutory requirements for preemption pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31141.
The December 2018 determination acknowledged that it represents a
change in the Agency's prior position as articulated in the 2008
Decision and in the government's amicus brief in Dilts v. Penske
Logistics, LLC, No. 12-55705 (9th Cir. 2014), that the MRB rules are
not regulations ``on commercial motor vehicle safety.'' In its 2008
decision and in Dilts, the Agency reasoned that because the MRB rules
apply to employers in other industries in addition to motor carriers,
the provisions were not within the scope of the Secretary's preemption
authority under section 31141. It should be noted that in Dilts, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, made no
determination concerning whether the MRB Rules were preempted pursuant
to section 31141; rather, the court determined that they were not
preempted under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act
of 1994, 49 U.S.C. 14501(c).
In its recent decision, FMCSA provided a detailed explanation of
its reasons for reevaluating and changing the position it took in 2008.
FMCSA reexamined provisions of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 and
concluded that Congress intended that there be as much uniformity as
practicable whenever a Federal standard and a State requirement cover
the same subject matter, such as the MRB rules and the HOS regulations.
See S. Rep. No. 98-424, at 14 (1984). The Agency's determination is
also supported by the December 2011 revisions to the Federal HOS
regulations, which added a mandatory rest period.
Having determined that the MRB rules are within the scope of the
Secretary's preemption authority under section 31141, the Agency
granted the petitions to ensure uniform and consistent rules in order
to promote safety and economic growth and to protect drivers and
consumers. Safety is FMCSA's top priority, and the Agency believes that
making uniform rules for interstate carriers, where possible, is a key
component to increasing safety on the roads. In addition, different
rules in different states adds needless burdens on drivers--many of
whom are small businesses fighting to make ends meet in a competitive
market.
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), two IBT locals,
several drivers, and the State of California have filed petitions for
review in the Ninth Circuit challenging FMCSA's determination. Since
the December 2018 decision, the American Bus Association filed a
petition seeking preemption of California's MRB rules for passenger-
carrying CMV drivers, and the Washington Trucking Associations also
petitioned the Agency to preempt Washington State's meal and rest break
rules for CMV drivers. Both petitions are under review.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
boeing 737 max
Question. Secretary Chao, in the wake of the two recent crashes
involving the same Boeing aircraft model, the public deserve more
transparency about the FAA's safety certification process. In written
testimony before the Commerce Committee today, DOT's inspector general
said ``while revamping FAA's oversight process will be an important
step, continued management attention will be key to ensure the agency
identifies and monitors the highest-risk areas of aircraft
certification.''
Do you agree that increased attention by FAA management is key to
identifying these issues before problems occur? If FAA management is so
important to FAA's safety certification process, why did the President
wait 14 long months before nominating a new head of the FAA, and what
does that say about this Administration's dedication to safety?
Answer. Management attention to oversight processes has always
been, and continues to be, very strong. The effectiveness of the FAA's
robust aircraft certification and safety oversight systems do not
depend on any one individual or group of individuals. Managers and all
other employees within the FAA play essential roles in identifying and
resolving safety issues wherever they may potentially or actually
appear.
That being said, the FAA is under the strong leadership of Acting
Administrator Elwell, who was previously FAA's head of policy from 2006
to 2008. Mr. Elwell served as a military and airline pilot as well as
in a variety of industry leadership positions before being appointed
FAA Deputy Administrator by President Trump. He is a dedicated, life-
long safety professional who has served the agency and the flying
public very well in his tenure as Acting Administrator.
Question. In the last week, I've sent letters to both the FAA and
Boeing asking questions about the decisions involved with qualifying
certain important safety features on their Max series aircraft as
options only available to airlines at an additional cost. Recent
reports indicate that Boeing will now make at least one of those
previously optional safety features standard on their aircraft in the
wake of these tragic crashes.
I understand that DOT is currently involved in ongoing
investigations not only into the cause of the two recent crashes but
also into the FAA's role in certifying these planes as safe to fly, but
can you confirm that the FAA will require Boeing to add an additional
safety feature to the 737 Max 8 series that the FAA previously
determined was not required to be standard? If so, why was this safety
features not originally required by the FAA to be included on all Max
series aircraft?
Answer. Required safety standards and features for large aircraft
are established in 14 CFR part 25 (``Airworthiness Standards: Transport
Category Airplanes''). Features required to meet those safety standards
are mandatory on all FAA-certified aircraft, including the Boeing 737
MAX. There are no optional safety standards or features.
Question. What testing and data from the manufacturer is required
by the FAA to justify a manufacturer's decision to qualify a safety
feature as merely optional?
Answer. FAA regulations (14 CFR Part 25) prescribe safety
requirements an applicant must meet. They are not optional.
amtrak long distance service
Question. Secretary Chao, among the significant cuts to
infrastructure that were outlined in the President's fiscal year 20
budget request, the most troubling for many of my constituents in
Illinois is the Administration's proposal to slash funding for Amtrak's
long distance service. Amtrak operates 15 long-distance routes across
the nation. These trains offer the only Amtrak service in 23 of the 46
states Amtrak serves. Eight of Amtrak's 15 long distance trains run
through Illinois. If Congress went along with President Trump's
proposal, passenger rail service in Illinois would be significantly
reduced, hurting thousands of Illinois students, seniors, and rural
riders, who depend on this service the most. For many in Illinois,
Amtrak's long-distance service provides them with the only affordable
access they have to their jobs, to their schools, to their healthcare
facilities, and to their families.
Secretary Chao, please explain to me how President Trump's proposal
to cut this vital passenger rail service will benefit the people of my
state, especially those living in rural areas?
Answer. The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget proposes to begin
restructuring Amtrak's Long Distance network, phasing decisionmaking
and cost responsibilities to the states over a four-year period via
transition assistance through the Restoration and Enhancements grant
program. This proposal empowers states such as Illinois to work with
Amtrak and other potential operators to define the corridors, services,
and markets that best meet the demands of their residents and
interests.
The operating and financial performance metrics for Amtrak's Long
Distance routes illustrate a struggling business model in need of
reform, with its fundamental problem being the inability to meet
customer expectations and demand. Markets served via Long Distance
routes, including those in rural areas, suffer infrequent service at
inconvenient times that are often significantly delayed. The
substantial Federal resources required to operate the existing Long
Distance network--nearly $550 million in annual operating costs,
hundreds of millions of dollars annually for capital maintenance and
upgrades, and a looming multi-billion dollar equipment replacement
need--do not provide a justifiable return on investment.
The eight shorter-distance State-Supported routes that operate
within Illinois and into neighboring states carry more passenger
annually (2.6 million) than the entirety of the eight Long Distance
services that traverse portions of the state (2.4 million), while
costing taxpayers significantly less in Federal subsidies (less than $1
million for State-Supported routes vs. nearly $300 million for the
Illinois-served Long Distance Routes). The Federal Government, Amtrak,
states, localities, and private sector partners should focus investment
in existing and new State-Supported corridors that provide better
performance and more relevant transportation choices for passengers.
Question. The budget also calls for states to cover more of the
costs of Amtrak service, which sounds a lot like the President's
approach to infrastructure funding.
Do you think it's realistic to propose that already cash-strapped
states should be footing more of the bill when it comes to Amtrak
service?
Answer. The Restoration and Enhancement Grant funding will provide
transition assistance to states as they assume control over their
regional corridor services, covering 100 percent of net operating costs
in fiscal year 2020, 80 percent of net operating costs in fiscal year
2021, 60 percent of net operating costs in fiscal year 2022, and 40
percent of net operating costs in fiscal year 2023. The phasing down of
this funding is in recognition that major changes to intercity
passenger rail service patterns can take time to build a ridership base
and generate sufficient revenues against the service's capital and
operating costs. By fiscal year 2024, states will assume full
responsibility for all operating costs associated with their new
services.
States are encouraged to apply with Amtrak for this funding in
fiscal year 2020 so they can begin to make informed decisions about
their routes and the elements they value to continue operating in the
future. During this time, the Department of Transportation, Amtrak,
states, and affected local governments will collaborate to rationalize
the Long Distance network to more efficiently serve modern market needs
as a series of shorter-distance, high-performing corridor services.
While the fiscal year 2020 President's Budget proposes to phase out
Federal operating support for Long Distance services, the proposal also
includes $330 million in funding under the Consolidated Rail
Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Program in part to assist states
in funding capital improvements required to upgrade services on these
new state routes. The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget also proposes
to continue funding the portion operating costs on the higher-
performing State-Supported services that are not covered by annual
state payments ($94 million in fiscal year 2018).
build grants & transit
Question. I was disappointed to see that the Administration is
calling for a $1 billion cut to transit grants when there is such a
tremendous need for expanding and modernizing public transit around the
country. At the same time, this Administration is largely ignoring the
growing needs of transit systems when it comes to TIGER/BUILD grants.
Less than 10 percent of TIGER/BUILD funding went to transit projects in
fiscal year 18, up from less than 4 percent of TIGER/BUILD funding in
fiscal year 17. By comparison, 24 and 29 percent of TIGER funding went
to mass transit projects in the last 2 years of the Obama
Administration. As a member of this panel who was here when the TIGER
program was created, I can assure you that it was Congress's intention
to have a more balanced and representative set of projects selected
from various modes.
Why does this Administration continue to ignore bipartisan support
in Congress for increased funding for transit projects?
Answer. As you know, the BUILD discretionary grant program is
extremely competitive. In the last round of BUILD, the Department
received 851 eligible applications--almost twice the amount of
applications from the previous round. Approximately 12 percent of the
awarded projects were transit projects, which is roughly proportional
to the number of transit applications the Department received for this
BUILD round. The Department continues to take measures to ensure
investment in a variety of transportation modes.
positive train control
Question. Secretary Chao, you've made a point of touting the
progress that railroads have made under your watch towards implementing
positive train control (PTC) safety technology. Metra, the commuter
railroad that serves the Chicago region, remains on track to have PTC
fully operational on all its lines by 2020 despite the enormous costs
involved. PTC will cost Metra more than $400 million to implement and
is expected to add $15-20 million annually to Metra's operating costs.
Without adequate Federal funding, implementing PTC has come at the
expense of other Metra capital and safety improvements.
If this safety technology is a priority for DOT, would this
Administration support a new grant or funding program in the upcoming
surface transportation reauthorization to help commuter railroads
afford the operating costs of PTC?
Answer. Safety is our number one priority at DOT. Positive Train
Control vastly improves rail safety and we look forward to full PTC
implementation in 2020, as required by Congress. DOT has supported PTC
implementation extensively since the original 2008 mandate--providing
guidance, alternative schedules, and over $2.5 billion in funding for
freight, intercity, and commuter railroads to implement PTC through
numerous grant and loan programs. We appreciate the dedication and
investment the rail community has committed to this life saving
technology.
The Department's priority for PTC is getting systems operational by
the 2020 deadline and we will continue to engage, support, and monitor
railroads efforts to meet the mandate. As PTC systems come on line, DOT
will continue strong oversight of rail operations to ensure railroads
operate safely and properly maintain all components, including PTC.
low-no
Question. The FTA's Low or No Emission (Low-No) Program helps
transit agencies of all sizes, including small and rural agencies,
deploy emerging technology buses and charging infrastructure. But this
Administration has consistently awarded these grants including one to
Champaign-Urbana in Illinois in amounts that are often lower than the
cost of just one bus. Small and rural transit agencies, in particular,
have a difficult time making up the funding differential, effectively
preventing them from initiating their projects and leaving them far
behind larger transit agencies when it comes to implementing clean
technologies. I understand that there is only so much funding to go
around, but FTA needs to distribute these funds more effectively.
Can you commit to instructing the FTA to ensure that Low-No grant
awards will be at levels that are adequate for transit agencies to
initiate their projects? Also, can you explain to why the FTA will now
prohibit partnerships with non-profit project managers on these
projects, which are especially useful for cash-strapped small and rural
transit agencies wanting to deploy new technology buses?
Answer. The Low or No Emission (Low-No) competitive program has
historically been oversubscribed by a wide margin. In fiscal year 2018,
the amount requested by applicants was almost seven times greater than
the $84 million of funding appropriated by Congress. In making funding
decisions for all competitive programs, the FTA ensures a project can
be completed with the amount awarded, including any local matching of
funds.
The Low-No Program is the FTA's only grant program that allows
agencies to partner with third party entities to execute projects, thus
fulfilling the third-party procurement requirement. Requiring a
competitive procurement for the Low-No program will comply with Federal
requirements for a full and open competition and bring the program in
line with the FTA's other grant programs.
Rural and small urban entities that are interested in transitioning
to a Low or No Emission propulsion technology can receive technical
assistance from the FTA sponsored program manager at CALSTART and from
the federally funded National Rural and Technical Assistance Program.
The Department and FTA value the relationship and collaboration we
have with the industry and will continue to provide both technical
assistance and funding opportunities to support public transportation.
vehicle safety
Question. The Administration has proposed reducing NHTSA's vehicle
safety program by $49 million (26 percent) from the agency's 2019
budget. The FAST Act authorized $214,073,440 for NHTSA's vehicle safety
program for fiscal year 2020. The Administration's request is $63
million less than the Congressional authorization.
In addition, under the Administration's proposal the enforcement
budget which supports the agency's efforts to identify safety recalls
and ensure new vehicles meet Federal safety standards will be cut by
$13.5 million (40.9 percent) The rulemaking budget will be cut by $2.4
million (9.6 percent). Deaths and injuries on our Nation's roads remain
unacceptably high. Each day on average, over 100 people are killed and
8,500 more are injured in motor vehicle crashes.
Moreover, today, 95 percent of transportation-related fatalities,
and 99 percent of transportation injuries, involve motor vehicles. This
is a public health epidemic by any measure and most certainly would not
be tolerated in any other mode of transportation, yet, NHTSA receives
only 1 percent of the overall DOT budget. According to NHTSA, roughly
41.6 million vehicles equipped with 56 million defective Takata air
bags are under recall because these air bags can explode when deployed,
causing serious injury or death.
Moreover, additional safety recalls of Takata airbags continue to
be issued by NHTSA. Additionally, as Secretary Chao has publicly
acknowledged, the U.S. Department of Transportation and NHTSA are
facing even greater responsibilities and challenges as autonomous
vehicles, also known as driverless cars, are developed and deployed.
NHTSA has failed to meet several mandated deadlines set by Congress in
the 2012 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act
(Public Law 112-141) to issue regulations requiring rear seatbelt
reminders, updating lower anchorages and tethers for children (LATCH)
systems for child occupants and to improve occupant protection in
motorcoaches.
The Administration's budget request for DOT includes a $49 million
reduction in funding for NHTSA's vehicle safety program. Included in
this cut is a 40 percent reduction in funding for the agency's
enforcement budget which supports NHTSA's efforts to identify safety
recalls and ensure new vehicles, such as new driverless cars, meet
Federal safety standards. In addition, the agency's rulemaking budget
will be cut by over $2 million.
At a time when Americans are experiencing safety recalls of
millions of vehicles including the deadly Takata airbag fiasco, do you
not have concerns about how can the agency will be able to meet its
mission to protect the public given the drastic cuts the Administration
is proposing to NHTSA's enforcement budget? Would you please share with
the Committee the Department's plan to make up for this potential
reduction of resources?
Answer. The President's budget request for the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has held steady in recent fiscal
years. Additional funding authorized and appropriated by Congress in
fiscal year 2018 and 2019 has helped to support the Agency's work to
modernize information technology systems used to manage vehicle safety
recalls.
As you know, NHTSA's mission is to save lives, prevent injuries,
and reduce economic costs due to road traffic crashes, through
education, research, safety standards, and enforcement activity. The
fiscal year (FY) 2020 President's Budget requests $929 million to
support NHTSA's full spectrum of vehicle and behavioral safety
activities, including $151 million for Vehicle Safety, $155.3 million
for Highway Safety Research and Development, and $623 million for
Highway Traffic Safety Grants. These resources will enable NHTSA to
further influence driver behaviors to reduce injuries and fatalities on
our roadways, continue its efforts in rulemaking, enforcement, and
vehicle research, and develop and implement data-driven, workable, and
self-sustaining highway safety programs.
Regarding enforcement and safety recalls specifically, the fiscal
year 2020 budget request includes resources to ensure NHTSA fulfills
its critical enforcement goals and objectives, including ongoing
oversight of the Takata air bags safety recall, one of the largest and
most complex recalls in history.
Question. Is it wise to cut NHTSA's rulemaking budget by over $2
million at a time when the agency is woefully behind in issuing safety
rulemakings that were directed by Congress in 2012 including those that
would enhance safety for children and motorcoach passengers? Would you
please share with the Committee the Department's plan to make up for
this potential reduction of resources?
Answer. The fiscal year 2020 budget requests approximately $2.4
million less for NHTSA's Office of Rulemaking. Nearly all of that
reduction is attributed to its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). The
key performance indicator for NCAP is the percentage of new vehicles
rated by NCAP for a given model year vehicle fleet. Because of
variations in the new vehicle fleet, funding levels vary from year to
year in order to maintain a high percentage of rated vehicles. NHTSA
expects to fulfill its rulemaking goals and objectives--including
testing and rating a substantial percentage of the new vehicle fleet in
the NCAP program--with the resources requested in the fiscal year 2020
budget.
rear seatbelt rulemaking
Question. The majority of passengers in the rear seats of vehicles
are children and teens, and studies have shown that seat belt usage by
teens is among one of the lowest segments of society. Congress directed
NHTSA to issue a final rule requiring rear seat belt reminders in all
new motor vehicles by October 2015 in Section 31503 the Moving Ahead
for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP- 21) Act (Public Law 112-141).
The February 2019 Department of Transportation Significant
Rulemaking Report (the latest report available) indicates that NHTSA
plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking in May 2019. However,
the agency has rarely met such target dates.
Unbelted rear seat passengers pose a serious threat to the driver
and other vehicle occupants. Known as ``back seat bullets,'' unbelted
rear seat passengers can be thrust at high rates of speed into other
occupants, causing fatalities and serious injuries, as well as loss of
control of the vehicle. The risk of death for a belted driver seated
directly in front of an unrestrained passenger in a serious head-on
crash more than doubles than if seated in front of a restrained
passenger. Seat belt use in the rear seat is especially crucial as the
safety infrastructure built into the vehicle is not as developed in the
rear seat as it is in the front seat.
NHTSA reports the proportion of unrestrained passenger vehicle
occupants killed that were seated in the front seat was 46 percent,
compared to 56 percent of unrestrained passenger vehicle occupants
killed that were seated in the rear seat (NHTSA). Rear seat belt
reminders are standard equipment on several models tested by the Euro
New Car Assessment Program (Euro NCAP). Congress directed NHTSA, as
part of MAP-21, to issue a final rule requiring rear seat belt
reminders in all new motor vehicles by October 2015, but the agency has
yet to issue even a notice of proposed rulemaking.
With 56 percent of unrestrained passenger vehicle rear seated
occupants killed, what is the reason for the egregious delay? Can you
assure the Committee that NHTSA will meet its own, most recent deadline
for issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking in May 2019? Can you also
assure the Committee that a final rule will be issued with expediency
thereafter?
Answer. One of the safest choices drivers and passengers can make
is to buckle up. As part of NHTSA's mission to help Americans drive,
ride and walk safely, the Agency works to educate Americans about how
to protect themselves and others on the road through public service
campaigns such as Buckle Up America, Never Give Up Until They Buckle Up
(promoting `tween' seat belt use), and Click It or Ticket, (associated
with increased seat belt enforcement periods supported by State and
local law enforcement across the country). NHTSA research has further
informed strategies to improve seatbelt use, including a program in
which education by trauma nurses is shown to improve drivers' positive
outlook regarding seatbelt use.
NHTSA estimates that 14,955 lives were saved by seatbelt use in
2017. A 2008 NHTSA research note, States With Primary Enforcement Laws
Have Lower Fatality Rates (Updated) (NCSA, 2008), suggested that seat
belt use among killed occupants was at least 13 percentage points
higher in States with primary enforcement laws. In addition, results
from the annual National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) have
found that seat belt use in primary law States is consistently higher
than use in States with secondary laws or no law (90.9 percent versus
85.7 percent, respectively, in 2017).
In June 2010, NHTSA published a request for comments notice on rear
seat belt reminder systems. The agency is currently working on a notice
to address this provision in Section 31503 of MAP-21. The timing for
completion of the rulemaking process will be determined following the
public comment period.
motorcoach safety
Question. Americans make hundreds of millions of trips on inter-
city motorcoaches each year. Over the past few decades, safety problems
identified as a result of motorcoach crashes prompted the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to issue numerous motorcoach safety
recommendations following in-depth crash investigations.
Based on the NTSB safety recommendations, the Motorcoach Enhanced
Safety Act of 2012, part of MAP-21, requires that a number of
regulations must be issued by NHTSA to improve motorcoach safety. Two
of these provisions, one to improve the structural integrity, i.e., the
roof strength or crush resistance of motorcoaches, and the other to
prevent passengers of motorcoaches from being ejected through windows
during a crash, are long overdue, as NHTSA has missed the deadlines
mandated by Congress in MAP-21.
The February 2019 Department of Transportation Significant
Rulemaking Report (the latest report available) indicated that NHTSA
plans to issue a final rule for the structural integrity rulemaking in
June 2019. The agency has not provided any further dates for the
ejection rulemaking. The motorcoach safety regulations in MAP-21 were
sponsored by both Republican and Democratic members of the Senate and
the House and supported by industry and safety advocates as well as
crash victims and their families.
Congress directed NHTSA, as part of MAP-21, to issue a number of
regulations to improve the safety of motorcoaches. Specifically, the
agency was required to issue rules to improve the structural integrity
of motorcoaches and to prevent passengers from being ejected. Both of
these rulemakings were required to be completed by October 2014. Both
rulemakings are long overdue to the unnecessary peril of motorcoach
passengers.
What is the reason for the egregious delay? Can you assure the
Committee that NHTSA will meet its own, most recent deadline for
issuing a final rule for the structural integrity rulemaking in June
2019?
Answer. NHTSA is working to improve motorcoach safety in the United
States.
In addition to the 2013 final rule requiring seat belts on all
motorcoaches and large buses and the 2015 final rule requiring
electronic stability control on these vehicles, NHTSA published a 2014
notice of proposed rulemaking applicable to motorcoaches and other
large buses which proposed requirements for improved structural
integrity to maintain occupant survival space in a rollover. NHTSA is
currently working on the final rule.
Question. NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding
emergency exits, window retention and release and anti-ejection glazing
portals for motorcoaches in May 2016 but has not taken any further
regulatory action. In fact the rulemaking no longer appears on the
agency's regulatory agenda.
What is the status of this rulemaking and what is the reason for
this egregious delay?
Answer. NHTSA published a 2016 notice of proposed rulemaking
applicable to motorcoaches and other large buses that included
requirements for advanced glazing on windows and other portals to
mitigate occupant ejections. NHTSA is evaluating next steps for this
rulemaking.
latch rulemaking
Question. Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death for
American children age five to 14. When children are properly
restrained, their chance of being killed or seriously injured in a car
crash is greatly reduced. According to NHTSA, when used properly, child
safety seats reduce fatal injury by 71 percent for infants and 54
percent for toddlers in passenger cars.
Nearly 325 lives were saved in 2017 by restraining children four
and younger in passenger vehicles. Congress, as part of MAP-21,
required NHTSA to issue a final rule to improve the ease of use of the
Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH) systems in rear seating
positions by October 2015. The proposed rule was issued in January of
2015, but the agency has taken no further action.
In the February 2019 Significant Rulemaking Report (the latest
report available) NHTSA does not provide a target date to issue a final
rule. Congress directed NHTSA, as part of MAP-21, to issue a final rule
to improve the ease of use of the Lower Anchors and Tethers for
Children (LATCH) systems in rear seating positions by October 2015, but
the agency has yet to meet this deadline.
What is the reason for the egregious delay? Please provide this
Committee with an update on the status of this rulemaking. Can you
assure the Committee that NHTSA will complete this rulemaking within 1
year?
Answer. In response to the 2015 notice of proposed rulemaking for
improving the ease-of-use of child restraint anchorage systems, NHTSA
received public comments on the repeatability and reproducibility of
the proposed requirements and criteria. Subsequently, NHTSA initiated
research to address several technical matters identified by commenters.
This research was just completed in 2018. NHTSA is considering the
results in deciding on the appropriate next steps.
utomatic emergency braking
Question. Based on NHTSA data from 2003 through 2008, large trucks
are the striking vehicles in approximately 32,000 rear-end crashes
resulting in 300 fatalities and injuring over 15,000 people annually.
Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) systems can mitigate or prevent
many of these crashes. AEB provides a warning to the driver if the
truck comes too close to another vehicle in front of the truck, and can
then automatically apply the brakes if the driver fails to do so. NHTSA
estimates that advanced AEB systems could save 166 lives per year, a
reduction of 57 percent from current annual fatalities, and prevent
8,361 injuries per year, a reduction of 56 percent, in certain types of
crashes.
In October 2015, NHTSA granted a petition for rulemaking seeking
the issuance of a rule to require AEB on all commercial motor vehicles
with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 lbs. or more. The
petition was filed by the following safety organizations: Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety, the Center for Auto Safety, the Truck Safety
Coalition and Road Safe America. However, the agency has yet to take
any further regulatory action.
In October 2015, NHTSA granted a petition for rulemaking filed by
several safety organizations seeking the issuance of a rule to require
Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) on all commercial motor vehicles with
a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 lbs. or more. However,
in the more than 3 years since granting the petition for rulemaking,
the agency has not undertaken any regulatory actions.
Please provide this Committee with an update on the agency's work
in this area since granting the petition and a date certain by which
the agency will issue a proposed rule.
Answer. NHTSA has researched forward collision avoidance systems in
commercial vehicles over the past several years. In 2016, NHTSA
completed the first phase of a field operational test (real-life
testing) that examined hundreds of drivers operating trucks from
different manufacturers equipped with AEB and lane departure warning
technologies. In 2018, NHTSA commenced a second phase of a field
operational test to account for major technological improvements. This
second phase will examine the real-world performance of current
generation AEB systems that offer improved detection, greater precision
and new features, such as stationary object braking. Once this research
and field testing is completed, NHTSA will determine next steps.
Furthermore, regarding the light-duty vehicle fleet, the Agency has
closely coordinated with 20 auto manufacturers and the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) to advance AEB safety technology
through a voluntary commitment to equip virtually all new light-duty
cars and trucks with a gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less
with a low-speed AEB system that includes forward collision warning
(FCW) and crash imminent braking (CIB) to help prevent and mitigate
front-to-rear crashes.
Ten automakers already report equipping more than half of the
vehicles they produced between September 1, 2017, and August 31, 2018,
with AEB. Based on reporting by the 20 manufacturers that made the
commitment, about half of the vehicles produced during the period were
equipped with AEB.
The 10 manufacturers include many high-volume automakers such as
Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Three manufacturers--Mercedes-Benz, Tesla and
Volvo--report 93 percent or higher conformance with the voluntary
commitment, with Tesla at 100 percent.
crisi grant program
Question. The budget proposes $330 million for the Consolidated
Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement (CRISI) Grants program. This
is above the fiscal year 19 enacted level of $255 million and equal to
the authorized fiscal year 20 level. The budget also provides $550
million for the Restoration and Enhancement (R&E) program, a
substantial increase over both the fiscal year 19 enacted level of $5
million and the fiscal year 20 authorized level of $22 million.
However, these funds are provided for a program which the budget
proposes to substantially change. The budget alters the program,
stating grants are ``to support restructuring long-distance routes''
and ``are not limited to the initiation, restoration, or enhancement of
intercity rail passenger transportation.''
The budget plans to use this reformed R&E program to enact the
above changes to Amtrak's national network. Congress created and funded
the Restoration and Enhancement program specifically to support the
initiation, restoration, or enhancement of intercity passenger rail
service. The clear, bipartisan, purpose was to increase service and
ridership.
The Administration proposes to instead use this program to break up
Amtrak's national network, reducing service and likely limiting
ridership. Meanwhile, support for the existing R&E program is
demonstrated by both Congress's continued funding and by applications
for funding from across the country.
Do you support funding for the initiation, restoration, or
enhancement of intercity rail passenger transportation? What would you
tell local communities seeking support for new or expanded passenger
rail service, who many no longer have that opportunity under the
administration's proposal? How would the administration propose
investing in the initiation, restoration, or enhancement of intercity
rail passenger transportation should the administration's plan be
enacted?
Answer. The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget proposes to begin a
collaborative process among the Department of Transportation, Amtrak,
states, and local governments to restructure the current Long Distance
network into a series of shorter-distance, high-performing corridors.
The proposal does not consist solely of transitioning costs of the
existing, antiquated Long Distance network to states. Rather, the
intent is to rationalize the network to provide a modern and more
relevant service to passengers, including better scheduled departures
and arrivals, and new frequencies and markets served where warranted.
The existing routes currently serve many promising city pairs and
markets that could flourish and result in significantly improved
service if restructured. We look forward to working with local
communities and states to invest in an improved network that meets
their transportation needs.
The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $330 million for
the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Program.
These funds would be available to eligible applicants to support the
capital and equipment costs needed for potential new or expanded
services.
build grants
Question. Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development
(BUILD) grants (formerly TIGER)--The administration proposes $1 billion
for the BUILD grant program in fiscal year 20. This is a welcome
departure from previous budget proposals in which the administration
sought to eliminate the program. Despite the administration targeting
this program for elimination, Congress appropriated $500 million in
fiscal year 17, $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2018, and $900 million in
fiscal year 2019. The budget also proposes changes to the program,
relative to the fiscal year 2019 appropriations.
The most recent round of awards continues a pattern in which the
program is oriented away from its purpose of funding projects which are
multi-modal, transformative, of national significance, and which are
otherwise difficult to fund. This limits the usefulness of the program
for local communities and our country.
The BUILD program was created to support multi-modal and transit-
oriented projects, projects of national significance, and projects that
cut across administrative boundaries within the Department of
Transportation and that are therefore not easily accomplished through
other funding programs, and I was disappointed by the apparent lack of
commitment to these types of projects. Thank you for the robust funding
proposed for the BUILD program in fiscal year 2020.
While I appreciate the funding support, how will the
administration's budget ensure the program selects projects which are
multi-modal, transformative, of national significance, and which are
otherwise difficult to fund through formulas and other funding sources?
Answer. The Department continues to support broad selection
criteria in all rounds of the BUILD discretionary grant program to help
award innovative and transformative projects, including multimodal
projects. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 provided $900
million to be awarded on a ``competitive basis for projects that will
have a significant local or regional impact''. The award size is
limited to no more than $25 million per project.
Because the Department believes that local communities best know
their infrastructure needs, the fiscal year 2020 President's Budget
included $1 billion for critical transportation projects, such as those
identified by local communities, that will have a significant impact on
the Nation, a metropolitan area, or a region. The merit-based,
competitive nature of the BUILD program allows the Department to award
projects that best align with selection criteria and positively impact
the communities in which they are located.
Question. Do you agree that projects in urban areas can create
benefits for the surrounding community and region, including rural
areas? In recent rounds of awards, the administration has selected
projects located predominantly in rural areas.
Answer. The interconnected nature of the nation's transportation
networks require investment in both rural and urban areas. The
Department takes measures to ensure an appropriate balance in
addressing the needs of urban and rural areas, and is especially
committed to addressing the unmet transportation infrastructure needs
of rural communities.
For the fiscal year 2019 BUILD Appropriations, Congress stipulated
not more than 50 percent of BUILD funds can be awarded to projects in
rural and urban areas, respectively. The Department fully intends to
meet that Congressional requirement for equitable distribution of funds
for urban and rural projects during this round of BUILD competition.
infrastructure proposal
Question. In addition to the fiscal year 20 budget, the
administration released a fact sheet outlining a new infrastructure
initiative. The plan, about which there are few details, calls for a
long-term surface transportation authorization and provides $200
billion to leverage $1 trillion in state and local investment.
Can you provide more detail about how the administration would
propose using the $200 billion allocated for infrastructure? What does
the administration propose as a source for the $200 billion?
Answer. The 2020 Budget called upon the Congress to pass
legislation that generates at least $1 trillion in infrastructure
investment. The Budget supports achieving this goal by 1) committing to
working with the Congress on a long-term surface transportation
reauthorization to provide our State, local, and private partners the
certainty they need to effectively plan and deliver projects and 2)
providing $200 billion in additional funding for other infrastructure
priorities to be allocated in partnership with the Congress toward
sectors and projects that address the most important needs and confer
the largest benefits to the American people. The President has also
indicated that a portion of the funding should promote visionary
projects and technologies to strengthen our economic competitiveness,
including 5G wireless communications, rural broadband, advanced
manufacturing, and artificial intelligence. The Administration is
committed to working with the Congress on sources for these
investments.
Question. In fiscal year 2019, the administration proposed an
infrastructure package of $200 billion which it said would leverage
$1.5 trillion. This year, the administration has again proposed $200
billion which it now says will only leverage $1 trillion.
Why will the Federal investment leverage $500 million fewer local
and private dollars in fiscal year 2020?
Answer. The fiscal year 2020 Budget's infrastructure plan would
generate at least $1 trillion in infrastructure investment. The Budget
also commits to working with the Congress on the details of the plan,
and those details would drive the amount of non-Federal investment.
federally funded highway programs
Question. Now that the Eisenhower Interstate system is complete, is
it time to revisit our highway funding programs? Are the current
formulas sufficient for ensuring enough resources to maintain a state
of good repair for the existing system? Do the formulas provide enough
guarantee that states and localities will invest in maintenance as
opposed to expansion?
Answer. The Department supports the transition to a performance
based approach to the Federal-aid highway program begun by MAP-21 and
continued through the FAST Act. Strengthening the relationship between
Federal funding and transportation outcomes related to safety,
congestion, and state of good repair is the best approach to ensuring
scarce Federal resources are devoted to the most appropriate uses on a
state-by-state basis.
Question. Too often, maintenance of existing infrastructure takes a
backseat to constructing new highway projects. Limited infrastructure
dollars can be put to better use investing in maintenance and improving
existing infrastructure to maximize mobility and access to jobs. Our
national transportation program does not emphasize state of repair work
before adding new infrastructure. Nor does it make shrinking the system
or any particular road or bridge easy.
How can the national program better support states and local
agencies as they struggle with the challenge of maintaining a large
system?
Answer. Completing the transition to a performance based program
will significantly enhance the ability for state and local agencies to
respond to their system's needs in the manner most appropriate to their
circumstance.
Question. What policies would you advance to implement a ``fix-it
first'' process?
Answer. Implementation of a performance-based approach, with a
focus on state of good repair, is already underway across the Federal-
aid highway program. Setting targets and tracking performance provides
States tools to improve the condition of their assets.
Question. Do you believe P3's can act as a substitute for real
Federal funding for infrastructure?
Answer. Public Private Partnerships are valuable tools in the
toolbox for communities seeking alternative approaches to procurement
and project delivery. They are not intended to completely replace other
funding sources from any level, whether Federal, state, or local.
Projects which are financed using revenue collected directly from
users, whether delivered using a public-private-partnership or by the
public sector alone, can help reduce the need for Federal funding.
Question. Are P3 projects a realistic funding sources in rural
communities?
Answer. Public private partnerships are not a one-size-fits-all
approach for any community, they represent a tool in the toolbox. Local
officials are the best judges of what their communities want and need
for both rural and urban areas.
Unlike transportation projects in congested urban areas, projects
with lower levels of use due to their location in low-population areas
are less likely to be able to finance themselves using revenue
collected directly from users. However, certain approaches, such as
combining availability payments with bridge bundling initiatives have
proven effective at supporting infrastructure deployment in the United
States.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Collins. This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., Wednesday, March 27, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at a time subject to
the call of the Chair.]