[Senate Hearing 116-242]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-242
BETTER, FASTER, CHEAPER, SMARTER, AND STRONGER: INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES TO DRIVE ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND RESILIENCY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 1, 2020
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-974 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware,
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia Ranking Member
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MIKE BRAUN, Indiana BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JONI ERNST, Iowa TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
Mary Frances Repko, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JULY 1, 2020
OPENING STATEMENTS
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 1
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 3
WITNESSES
Grumet, Jason, President, Bipartisan Policy Center............... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse... 27
Lanham, Robert, Jr., President, Associated General Contractors of
America Board 2020, and President, Williams Brothers
Construction................................................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse... 41
Goldfuss, Christy, Senior Vice President, Energy and Environment
Policy, Center for American Progress........................... 43
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse... 50
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter to Senators Barrasso and Carper from the Portland Cement
Association, July 1, 2020...................................... 84
The Protective Value of Nature: A Review of the Effectiveness of
Natural Infrastructure for Hazard Risk Reduction. Copyright
2020, National Wildlife Federation............................. 86
BETTER, FASTER, CHEAPER, SMARTER, AND STRONGER: INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES TO DRIVE ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND RESILIENCY
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 1, 2020
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in
room 106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Capito, Rounds,
Boozman, Cardin, Whitehouse, and Booker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. I would ask now that the witnesses for
today's hearing please come forward.
Good morning. I call this hearing to order.
Investing in America's infrastructure is critical; it is
critical as our economy recovers from the coronavirus pandemic.
Last month, we held a hearing on how rebuilding our highways
and bridges will create jobs, will reduce the cost of goods and
services, and will drive our Nation's economic recovery. Today,
we are going to examine how America's Transportation
Infrastructure Act will help build roads and bridges faster,
better, cheaper, smarter, and stronger.
Three months from today, the surface transportation
authorization will expire. This cannot be allowed to happen,
especially during this pandemic-caused economic downturn. To
make matters worse, the Highway Trust Fund is rapidly
approaching insolvency.
Prior to the pandemic, the Congressional Budget Office
projected that the Highway Trust Fund would run out of money in
mid-2021. Now, with Americans driving less, the Highway Trust
Fund will reach insolvency far sooner than first predicted. The
time for Congress to pass meaningful, bipartisan infrastructure
legislation is now.
Last year, this Committee approved historic and bipartisan
highway infrastructure legislation. We worked together across
the aisle to pass a bipartisan bill that greenlights broad,
widely supported ideas.
Democrats in the House, on the other hand, put up a
partisan stop sign. The House Democrats' transportation bill
stands in sharp contrast to our own. House Democrats cut their
Republican counterparts out of the process, and they wrote a
completely partisan bill. That is why, after a 36 hour markup,
it received no Republican votes in committee.
By comparison, this Committee unanimously passed our
highway bill in less than an hour.
The House Democrats' partisan bill is a road to nowhere.
Instead, Congress should pass the Senate's bipartisan
legislation and send it to President Trump's desk for
signature.
America's Transportation Infrastructure Act will provide
record levels of investment: $287 billion will be available
over 5 years to fix our roads and bridges, to create jobs, and
to boost our economy. The legislation increases funding for all
States and tribes, it cuts red tape, and it protects the
environment. It will also increase needed certainty for States
and communities to plan, to permit, and to build infrastructure
projects.
Given the unprecedented economic damage inflicted by the
coronavirus pandemic, we must assure infrastructure projects
are not needlessly delayed. The environmental review process is
important and necessary. It can also cause unnecessary delays.
Delays increase costs, they limit private investment, and they
hurt the American worker.
America's Transportation Infrastructure Act will speed up
project delivery by cutting red tape and simplifying agency
reviews. Reducing the time it takes to get environmental
permits is essential for building new highways and repairing
existing ones. To improve the permitting process, the bill
increases predictability, accountability, transparency, and
flexibility.
From 2010 to 2017, the Federal Highway Administration
completed environmental impact statements for 114 highway
projects. On average, it took almost 7 years to complete each
one of these environmental reviews.
America's Transportation Infrastructure Act sets a goal to
complete the process in just 2 years. The bill also requires
Federal agencies to establish a unified schedule and empowers
the project's lead agency to coordinate the entire permitting
process. These are key elements of the One Federal Decision
policy.
The legislation will also ensure America's infrastructure
is more resilient. Our roads and bridges must be strong enough
to handle extreme weather events like hurricanes and floods. At
the same time, our highways must withstand natural disasters
such as wildfires, earthquakes, and rockslides.
America's Transportation Infrastructure Act provides nearly
$5 billion to help protect our roads and bridges from natural
disasters and extreme weather events. More durable, longer
lasting roads are safer; they last longer, of course; and are
more efficient for everyone.
Passing America's Transportation Infrastructure Act into
law is critical for our Nation's economic recovery. It will
ensure better, faster, cheaper, smarter, and stronger projects.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses on this
important topic.
Now, I would like to turn to Ranking Member Carper for his
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I do want to welcome our witnesses. Thank you all for
joining us live and in person this morning. We do a lot
virtually around here; I am sure you do where you live and work
as well. It is nice to see you here, and thank you for your
work and for your presence and your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this
important hearing today.
I want to say a special thanks to all of our members of
this Committee, Democrat and Republican, and one Independent,
to thank them and their staffs for helping us produce a
bipartisan surface transportation reauthorization bill a year
ago that we reported unanimously out of this Committee.
Let me begin by noting that as we meet here today, the
House is also debating a broad infrastructure bill of their own
that includes not just surface transportation, but also
drinking water, energy infrastructure, and broadband. Those are
very important subjects.
The cornerstone of their bill, however, is the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's surface
transportation legislation. With the anticipated adoption of
that bill, perhaps even later today, the House is poised to
move closer to joining us in reauthorizing our Nation's surface
transportation programs, which are set to expire this fall. I
am sure we all welcome their progress. Although we may disagree
on some of the particulars there, we do welcome their progress.
Now, with the surface transportation reauthorization bill
moving in the House, it is time for the Senate Banking
Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee to develop their
own bipartisan titles so that a truly robust surface
transportation reauthorization bill can come to the Senate
floor in the months ahead. The American people are counting on
us to get this done. Let's not let them down.
Every member of our Committee knows that America's
transportation infrastructure is essential to our economy, to
our society, and if truth be known, to our way of life. The
more than 4 million miles of roadway and 600,000 bridges in
this country are essential not just in connecting us to
commerce and to services, but more importantly, connecting us
to one another. Unfortunately, across our country, many of
those same roads, highways, and bridges are in desperate need
of repair.
Whether you happen to be driving an 18-wheeler truck
hundreds of miles a day on interstates across the heartland, or
hitting pot holes on your way to work or the grocery store, or
to drop off the kids, just about every driver in America will
agree that our surface transportation infrastructure needs
work, a lot of it.
While some roads simply need repairs or repaving, others
need to be rebuilt or completely redesigned. According to the
U.S. Department of Transportation, approximately 20 percent of
our Federal aid highways are in poor condition--20 percent--as
are some 46,000 bridges.
For decades, we have invested in surface transportation
infrastructure as a country oftentimes without making
meaningful progress toward improving safety, reducing harmful
emissions, and enhancing resilience. Now, we face a growing
climate crisis that will only make those challenges even more
daunting.
Last week, some of the coldest places on Earth experienced
a historical heat wave. I don't know if my colleagues got to
see the news, but temperatures exceeded 100 degrees Fahrenheit
in the Arctic Circle for the first time in recorded history.
Think about that, 100 degrees.
Earlier this year, on the other side of the planet in
Antarctica, my wife and some of her girlfriends from their days
at DuPont were down in Antarctica. Shortly after they left, the
temperatures there reached 70 degrees Fahrenheit, 70 degrees
Fahrenheit, another record.
With historic heat waves reaching the coldest corners of
our planet, 2020 is on course to be the hottest year in
recorded history. Moreover, we are being told that the forecast
for this year's hurricane season may well set new records, too,
raising serious concerns all along the Atlantic Coast and
throughout the Gulf Coast.
Speaking of the Gulf of Mexico, one of our Republican
colleagues from Louisiana volunteered to me last week that sea
level rise continues to worsen in his State, too, where they
are losing roughly a football field of land a day--a football
field of land a day--to the sea. You will recall that a year
ago, the target of Mother Nature's fury was the Midwest, where
torrential rains and catastrophic flooding brought havoc to
many farming communities, delaying planting for a month or more
in some places.
Farther west, in places like California, Nevada, Oregon,
and Utah, communities are still reeling from last year's
wildfires, some of which were bigger than my State. And now,
they are preparing out there for another dangerously hot and
dry summer season.
These extreme weather events are happening more frequently,
pushing the National Flood Insurance Program ever further into
the red and damaging our infrastructure to the tune of hundreds
of billions--not millions, billions--of dollars each year.
As global temperatures continue to warm, ice caps melt and
sea levels rise, scientists tell us that the record breaking
heatwaves, devastating hurricanes, catastrophic floods, and
drought fueled wildfires we are already witnessing throughout
the world aren't likely to get better. If we don't get on the
stick, as my grandfather used to say, they are likely to get
worse.
Now, having said that, I understand that some of our
colleagues are interested in talking about the importance of
streamlining today, and it is important that we do that. As we
pivot to streamlining, however, let me ask that we keep in mind
that only about 1 percent of Federal highway projects require
the most complicated type of Federal environmental review. That
means 99 percent don't.
When Chairman Barrasso and I, with the help of our staffs,
first began our work on this legislation before us, America's
Transportation Infrastructure Act, nearly 2 years ago, we
learned that Congress has passed more than 60 streamlining
provisions all told in the last four transportation bills, even
though, I am told, the most detailed environmental reviews are
needed for about only 1 percent of Federal projects. I believed
then, and I still believe now, that we need to do more than
just stack more streamlining provisions on top of existing
ones. We ought to be able to move streamlining provisions. We
also need to ensure that the ones we have adopted are being
implemented.
In ATIA, we address streamlining needs in part by focusing
on how to make existing processes work better. In doing so, we
demonstrate that it is possible to facilitate important
projects without forgoing environmental protection. That is a
win for all of us who use America's roads, highways, and
bridges, and it is a win for our planet. Where I come from, we
call that a win-win situation. We could all use a few more of
those.
Some of our colleagues know that I am fond of quoting
Albert Einstein, who once said famously, ``In adversity lies
opportunity.'' God knows we face plenty of adversity these days
in our country and on our planet; pandemics, tens of millions
of Americans out of work, and the list goes on and on.
Having said that, there is opportunity here if we look for
it and seize the day. That is what our Committee did last
summer under the leadership of our Chairman, John Barrasso. We
led by our example. We didn't wait until the last minute. We
got out of the starting gate early.
A year ago, we unanimously approved ATIA, our bipartisan
surface transportation reauthorization bill that would make an
historic $287 billion investment in our Nation's roads,
highways, and bridges. We then said to our sister committees,
the Banking Committee, our friends on the Commerce Committee,
and those on the Finance Committee, including me, we are doing
our job on EPW; it is time for you on these other three
committees to do your jobs.
Is ATIA perfect? No. No bill that I have ever helped write
has been perfect, but this is legislation that we can be proud
of, even as we work to make it better in the days ahead.
Coming from the lowest lying State in the Union, I am
especially proud and grateful that our bill includes the first
ever climate title in a transportation bill in the history of
the Congress, investing some $10 billion over the next 5 years
directly in programs and policies that will combat climate
change by reducing emissions and improving the resiliency of
our transportation networks and infrastructure.
ATIA invests nearly $5 billion over 5 years in a new
resilience formula program available to all States, as well as
a competitive resilience grant program. These new PROTECT
grants would support projects across America that reinforce,
upgrade, or realign existing transportation infrastructure to
better withstand extreme weather events and other effects of
climate change.
ATIA also harnesses the power of Mother Nature by
establishing new eligibilities for natural infrastructure, like
the marshes and wetlands that protect our roads and bridges
from storm surges, in the National Highway Performance and the
Emergency Relief Program.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, let me close with this. A lot
has changed in the world since we first reported our surface
transportation reauthorization legislation nearly a year ago.
It seems like a decade ago. The coronavirus pandemic has
radically changed our lives, and tragically, taken nearly
130,000 American lives.
Just as all of us have been compelled to adjust and adapt
to a new normal in our everyday lives over the last several
years, we as a nation need to face the facts of the climate
crisis. With our bill, we are beginning to do so. We need to
keep it up, and while doing so, we need to build and rebuild a
surface transportation infrastructure of roads, highways,
bridges, and transit systems that are, once again, the envy of
the world.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to our conversation
this morning and to hearing from our witnesses, and to the work
ahead of us to make America's infrastructure better, smarter,
and truly, stronger.
Thank you very, very much.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Carper. We
appreciate it.
We are joined by three witnesses today that we are
delighted to welcome to the Committee. We have Mr. Jason
Grumet, who is the President of the Bipartisan Policy Center.
We have Mr. Bob Lanham, who is the President of the Associated
General Contractors of America. And we have Ms. Christy
Goldfuss, who is the Senior Vice President, Energy and
Environment Policy, of the Center for American Progress.
Welcome to all three of you. I want to remind you that your
full written testimony will be made a part of the official
record today. So we ask you to please try to keep your
statement to 5 minutes, so that we may have some time for
questions. I look forward to hearing testimony from all three
of you.
If we may start with Mr. Grumet.
STATEMENT OF JASON GRUMET,
PRESIDENT, BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER
Mr. Grumet. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
Carper, and the Committee, for the hard work, and particularly
for the very collaborative process you have undertaken in
developing the America's Transportation Infrastructure Act.
I am pleased to be here this morning to share the
Bipartisan Policy Center's strong support for this actionable,
bipartisan effort that will spur economic recovery, strengthen
surface transportation, and create a new model of bipartisan
cooperation that I believe offers a real solution to the
climate crisis.
I should apologize to your staff for the undue length of
our written testimony, but want you to understand this as an
expression our exuberance for being involved in a process that
is actually trying to put legislation on the desk of the
President of the United States.
All too often, we find the legislative process being used
to score political points and come up with messaging bills. I
think the time is now actually to act, and I commend the
Committee for the spirit of this legislative approach.
I will try to summarize my testimony by focusing on a few
of the highlights of the bill, and then also really explain why
we believe the combined focus on an official regulatory
approval process, emissions mitigation, and resilience,
represent the essential ingredients of a serious bipartisan
response to climate change.
There are three aspects of the legislation I would like to
call out. The first is the effort to unleash $300 billion of
critical economic activity at a moment when we have millions of
Americans looking for work, and State and local budgets in
disarray.
I also want to acknowledge the efforts to promote the
significant investment in clean technologies, and emissions
reductions, and in resilience against climate driven risk. And
finally, embrace the common sense permitting reforms that focus
on coordination and efficiency while sustaining the core values
and protections of the environmental review process.
As a democracy that respects private ownership and local
governance, I am proud that American citizens play a role in
decisions that affect their families and communities. I think
we have to resist the infrastructure envy and anecdotes about
how quickly totalitarian regimes can build airports.
We also have to avoid an exaggerated focus on horror
stories, as I think Senator Carper indicated. The vast majority
of projects do move forward quickly.
But the truth is that our record on infrastructure is
mixed. While most projects do move forward, we could do much
better to create predictability, transparency, and
accountability.
I also think we have to contend with the likelihood that
the long timeframes in our permitting process result in
political risks to investments that are causally related to the
private sector's vast under-investments in critical
infrastructure. So I commend the Committee for efforts to
create a more efficient, transparent, timely, and predictable
process.
I think the improvements that you are suggesting in
permitting fall into three basic categories. You are creating a
presumption of timeliness to encourage agencies to complete
their environmental reviews within an average of 2 years, a
presumption of coordination by codifying the bipartisan
components of the One Federal Decision, and requiring Federal
agencies to work together in applying categorical exclusions,
and a presumption of accountability by requiring a new
performance system for tracking major projects.
I would like to now turn to the broader implications for
the energy and climate debate. The hearing is titled Better,
Faster, Cheaper, Smarter, and Stronger. Mr. Chairman, I think
you have buried the lede by leaving out cleaner.
The future of our environment and our economy demands a new
coalition committed to building fast and building clean. While
conservation and energy efficiency are essential components of
an effective strategy, the solution to climate change and to
global competition depend on vast and urgent efforts to
develop, finance, permit, site, and construct new technologies
on a scale beyond what we have ever contemplated.
The Bipartisan Policy Center is increasingly concerned that
the United States will in fact succeed in inventing new, low
cost, competitive technologies for decarbonization but fail to
deploy these systems in time to avoid and manage the worst
effects of climate change.
I think members of this Committee appreciate far better
than most what it will take to achieve net zero emissions
across our economy. We need vast increases in solar and wind
power, supported by new transmission and massive battery
storage facilities, thousands of miles of new pipelines to move
CO2 from power generation to manufacturing, to
permanent underground sequestration reservoirs. We need
electric vehicle and hydrogen refueling infrastructure, new
fleets of advanced nuclear reactors, deep bore geothermal,
advanced hydropower, new facilities to capture carbon from the
air.
With continued leadership from many of you on this
Committee on efforts like the USE IT Act, and the Nuclear
Energy Leadership Act, and the efforts of your colleagues in
the Energy Committee on the Energy Innovation Act, I am
actually optimistic that the United States will invent low
carbon cost effective solutions. It would be beyond tragic to
excel at technology but fail at bureaucracy.
The focus on transportation, the provisions in this Act
spur forward looking infrastructure investments that can
improve the siting process much more broadly than just the
transportation sector. I would like to just note three
enhancements that I think are consistent with the spirit of
this legislation that I encourage you to consider.
The first is to reauthorize FAST-41. This is legislation
that has had bipartisan support, and it codifies the same basic
ideas in this package but applies them to a broader suite of
technologies.
Second, I would urge you to focus on life cycle cost
analysis. This must become the norm. Our history of building
cheap and passing along the buck was never a good idea. Based
on the extreme weather, it is revealing a tragic consequence.
We are never going to get ahead of resilience if we don't start
to think about full cost accounting.
Finally, I think our biggest challenge is our Federal
Republic. I believe the national imperative to de-carbonize our
economy while increasing global competitiveness will require
much greater Federal authority to advance critical projects
despite local opposition. And I believe that we have to revisit
ideas like the Critical Corridors Section of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005, which a number of you were a party to.
However, I also believe that certain place based
assessments must be strengthened in order to advance an
enduring and equitable climate solution. There is clear
evidence that communities of color have borne a
disproportionate burden of environmental harm from past energy
and infrastructure siting. This history must not be brushed
aside, nor repeated.
Many of these new, clean facilities will create jobs, grow
the tax base, and improve the quality of life in surrounding
communities. But in some cases, national and global benefits
may come at a cost to local communities. These costs must be
shared equitably.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, for too long we have allowed our
economic future to be held captive to magical thinking across
the political spectrum. In this caricature of extreme
perspectives, some have ignored or otherwise sought to
delegitimize the imperative of climate action. Others have
embraced the un-serious view that a solution can be achieved
quickly by transitioning to a sole reliance on renewed
resources without considering the economic, land use, and
reliability concerns, or resolving the citing challenges that
have plagued conventional energy projects.
Yet, these extremes have produced only paralysis and
acrimony, as both sides focus on the irresponsible positions of
the other, rather than facing their own limitations or seeking
common ground. Against this backdrop, passing this legislation
would be the highest common denominator affirmation that we
have the political will and the capacity to rebuild our economy
while meeting the climate challenge.
I thank you and your staff for your hard work and am eager
to participate in the conversation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grumet follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much for your
participation and your testimony. We are very, very grateful.
And your suggestion to not bury the lede is a very good
suggestion. Thank you.
Mr. Lanham.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT LANHAM, JR., PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATED GENERAL
CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA BOARD 2020, AND PRESIDENT, WILLIAMS
BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Lanham. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and
members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, thank
you for the invitation to testify today.
My name is Bob Lanham. I am a highway and bridge contractor
from Houston, Texas, and I have the pleasure of serving as the
2020 President of the Associated General Contractors of
America.
AGC is a national organization representing 27,000
businesses involved in every aspect of construction activity in
all 50 States, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC. On behalf of
AGC, the construction industry, and this Nation, I want to
thank this Committee for its bipartisan work on the America's
Transportation Infrastructure Act.
Our transportation infrastructure is not built by one
contractor, nor should the laws governing it be developed by
one political party. Bipartisan compromise enhances the
likelihood of legislative success, and ensures that all these
programs reflect the diverse needs of the States.
Before I talk about some of the important provisions in
ATIA, I would like to first address two things. One, the
immediate need of infusion of Federal funding for State DOTs;
and two, the need for an enactment of a robust multi-year
surface transportation bill.
With regard to the immediate needs of the DOTs, the COVID-
19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on our economy, the
American people, and the construction industry. States'
transportation revenues are expected to decline by 30 percent
over the next 18 months. This has caused many DOTs to delay
letting new projects. Construction businesses, just like any
other business, cannot survive many, many months without work.
In response, AGC is urging the Congress to provide an
immediate infusion of $49.95 billion in Federal funding to
support the State DOT funding shortfalls. I applaud Senator
Rounds for leading, and many of you on this Committee, for
signing the bipartisan letter to the Senate leadership in
support of this funding request.
With regard to a long term bill, the pandemic has clearly
reminded us that a safe, efficient, and reliable transportation
system is vital to any national emergency response. Our system
facilitates economic growth, and it improves the quality of
life of all Americans. The enactment of a long term surface
transportation bill, such as ATIA, will provide certainty
needed by the States' DOTs to plan and carry out critical
infrastructure investments. It will also provide a significant
economic boost to our Nation at a time when it is sorely
needed.
With regard to some of the other provisions in ATIA, it is
not just enough to provide robust investment levels. The bill
has other provisions in it that add extreme value. One, the
improvement of the environmental review and permitting process,
while all along protecting the environment. Finally, the
building of resilient infrastructure.
Over the years, the Congress has enacted laws that have
tried to assure a balance between environmental, economic, and
health concerns. However, in this complicated operation and
complex network of these laws and the intersection of all these
requirements, sometimes those were overseen, and the
environmental review process was delayed.
AGC is pleased that ATIA has incorporated the provisions to
improve the process. The most significant is simply the
codification of Executive Order 13807, which institutes the One
Federal Decision. This provision calls for a Federal
authorization and reviews to rely on a single environmental
document, establishes a 2 year goal for the completion of a
review of a major project, and a 90 day timeline related to any
authorization decisions to be issued after a record of
decision.
It also improves transparency through performance
accountability. It works like a business. Tracking system for
the review and the permitting process itself, and in that
allows for a monitoring and reporting of how the system is
working.
Other important provisions include but are not limited to
the establishing of deadlines for a Federal agency to review
and respond to categorical exclusion projects, requiring
certain reports that, especially one that details best
practices and potential changes to internal procedures at USDOT
to expedite the review process.
In recent years, our Nation has experienced significant
natural disasters. I partially experienced Harvey in Houston,
and the flooding associated. Our system is vital to our ability
to respond to and recover from these disasters. However, we
have all seen the pictures in the news of the roads that are
submerged or bridges that are crumbling.
AGC appreciates that ATIA includes provisions to improve
the resiliency of the transportation system. Arguably the most
important of these is the PROTECT grant program, funded at
nearly $1 billion per year. The diverse eligibilities of this
program will help ensure that the different needs of the States
can be addressed.
Chairman Barrasso, thank you for convening today's hearing.
It is a golden opportunity for the Congress. At a time when it
seems there is little that we can agree on, infrastructure
might prove to be that missing link.
I thank the Committee for its steadfast bipartisan efforts
to improve our Nation's transportation infrastructure, and I
look forward to answering any of your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lanham follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much for that very helpful
testimony. We appreciate your being here today.
At this time I would like to turn to Ms. Christy Goldfuss,
who is the Senior Vice President of Energy and Environment
Policy at the Center for American Progress.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTY GOLDFUSS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, ENERGY
AND ENVIRONMENT POLICY, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS
Ms. Goldfuss. Thank you.
Good morning, everyone.
Good morning, Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper.
Thank you for inviting me to participate in this important
hearing. It is truly nice to be out of the house for the first
time in 3 months and be here in person.
I am the Senior Vice President of Energy and Environment
Policy at the Center for American Progress, and previously ran
the White House Council on Environmental Quality during the
Obama administration.
Here is what I would like to tell the Committee today.
Infrastructure policy cannot be separated from its implications
for climate change, land use, structural racism, and the health
of our communities.
The transportation sector is now the leading source of
carbon pollution. The best time to incorporate the imperatives
of climate change and climate justice into transportation
policy were decades ago. But the second best time is now.
I congratulate the Environment and Public Works Committee
for S. 2302, America's Transportation Infrastructure Act, which
takes some important steps to grapple with these thorny and
critical issues.
The $10 billion climate change subtitle, the first ever in
a transportation bill, sets aside about 3.5 percent of highway
funding to retrofit or relocate existing infrastructure to
reward States that reduce transportation related greenhouse gas
emissions. This is a promising start, especially given the
bipartisan support.
At the end of the day, the fact that there is a climate
change subtitle in this bill will mean that there should never
again be a transportation bill that fails to invest in climate
mitigation and resilience. Following your lead, consider how
the House's current infrastructure bill begins to incorporate
climate policy into the core highway funding programs, in
addition to creating new funding programs similar to ATIA, for
adaptation and mitigation. This kind of bicameral interest in
reform represents a critical recognition that infrastructure
policy is climate policy.
However, the climate funding in this bill cannot be put to
good use to build resilient, climate ready infrastructure
without proper planning, community engagement, and public
review of the anticipated results. As this Committee is aware,
this environmental review is the purview of the National
Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, which you are all quite
familiar with, and which is currently under significant and
overreaching attack from the Trump administration in the
rewrite of the NEPA regulations.
NEPA is central, not antithetical, to the rapid permitting
and construction of resilient and equitable infrastructure
projects. Such projects require hundreds of millions, often
billions of taxpayer dollars. It does not make sense to leap
before we look and build an expensive new bridge in a location,
for example, that is going to be underwater in 5 years because
of sea level rise and storm flooding. That common sense
approach is why 80 percent of Americans support NEPA. They
truly want both a clean environment and strong infrastructure,
and don't want to sacrifice one for the other.
NEPA and the environmental review process also ensure that
all communities, particularly Black communities and other
communities of color, have a voice in decisions that affect
their neighborhoods and livelihoods. Without NEPA and with the
changes that the Trump administration is near to finalizing in
the regulations, communities will be unable to push back on
projects that may literally make it harder for them to breathe.
This is not an abstract concern. Just this week, the
Rhodium Group released an analysis that found, on average,
Black Americans are exposed to 46 percent more diesel
particulate matter emissions and 22 percent more air toxic
respiratory hazards than White Americans.
Given dozens of actions by Congress over the past 20 years,
we already have the necessary tools to ensure that NEPA's
process is efficient, transparent, and successful.
But the Federal Government must use the authorities granted
and invest in staff, basic tracking technology, and project
management systems, not slash support, as this Administration
has done. Specific recommendations for improving NEPA based on
my experience at CEQ are included in my written testimony.
As this Committee knows, infrastructure policy is climate
policy. And climate justice is also racial justice. This bill
is a first step toward both these goals.
With investment, community input, and careful planning, we
can truly form a more perfect Union, one built around justice,
opportunity, and hope.
I look forward to your questions. Thank you for having me.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Goldfuss follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you for your very thoughtful
testimony. We are glad to have all three of you here today.
I want to start with a question that actually goes to all
three of you.
I'm going to start with Mr. Lanham first. America's
Transportation Infrastructure Act requires, as we talked about,
environmental reviews for major highway projects to be
completed in a timely and predictable manner. The permitting
reforms in this bill mirror the Administration's One Federal
Decision policy.
So starting with you, Mr. Lanham, will each of you please
elaborate on how the bill's bipartisan permitting reforms will
help deliver these projects faster, better, cheaper, and
cleaner, while not sacrificing environmental safeguards?
Mr. Lanham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As we read it, absolutely nothing has changed in what
agencies review and what standards need to be--there has not
been a change in any of the environmental criteria by which it
is just requirement that each must run concurrently and
efficiently as they move through the process. So there has been
no change.
The other benefit of that is it collapses the time. Instead
of being sequential, it is concurrent review and evaluation of
a project. That collapses schedule, much in the same way that
we as builders collapse schedule looking at concurrent
construction activity to moving.
The other thing I think often goes overlooked, Mr.
Chairman, is that the program itself showing relevance to
public need, when the process is delayed from concept to
delivery, when you hear at a public hearing, I am not worried
about it; my grandchildren will. Then that project, the entire
program loses relevancy to immediate public need. If we are
talking about resiliency and those other issues that are of
immediate concern, we need a program that moves forward, and
that can address those.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Ms. Goldfuss.
Ms. Goldfuss. One Federal Decision is not a problem in the
way it is written. It is how it is administered. The whole
orientation of One Federal Decision is to make clear that the
client of the Federal Government is the project proponent. That
is just one client. The other client that is very important is
the American public.
So from my time at CEQ, I was very much in favor of FAST-41
and the permitting counsel that we have. Because I do think
having guidelines, transparency, and really making sure that we
are building off the data that each agency has is important.
And you need transparency and predictability to move forward
and build the country the way we need to build it.
The problem is, you have to allow for the community
engagement. That is a key part and a key constituency that is
not recognized in the One Federal Decision.
So I don't in and of itself have an issue; it is just with
how it is implemented, to make sure that we are continuing to
keep community voices as part of that process, and as part of
the timeline and the transparency that a project proponent
needs. Because if you don't engage the community, you run into
all these problems on the back end. And that actually, at the
end of the day, slows down the process.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Mr. Grumet.
Mr. Grumet. I think I will just add that we all agree that
you have to have a good process and good execution. I think the
premise of NEPA requires focus and coordination.
The one thing that Congress really didn't imagine when NEPA
was first put in place was the variety of different Federal
agencies, all who have different opinions, different views, and
different processes. So I think the most important aspect of
One Federal Decision is that we have to have one Federal
Government that is actually working at the same purpose.
I think you can summarize NEPA as a tale of two bridges. We
had the Tappan Zee Bridge, the Administration made it a
priority, the community focused on it, and within 11 months, a
$3.9 billion project EIS was complete, and that was an
incredible success story.
Fifty miles downriver, you had the Bayonne Bridge. Just
wanted to raise the bridge, same footprint. It took 5 years to
get a Federal decision that there was no significant impact.
Same process.
So I think Ms. Goldfuss is right; it is about execution. I
think the permit provisions in this bill set the right
expectations for the country.
Senator Barrasso. Hurricane season began June 1st, puts
much of the East and Gulf Coast on warning into the fall. June
through early July is peak fire season across the West.
In my home State of Wyoming, we can experience natural
disasters, wildfires, as well as severe flooding, rockslides.
So the toll that these natural disasters take on our Nation's
roads and bridges is significant.
Let me start with you, Mr. Grumet. What are the benefits
that States will see from investing in building more resilient
roads and bridges as this bill recommends?
Mr. Grumet. Mr. Chairman, I think it is an incredible
insight, and very important to the Nation to realize that in
2019, it was the fifth year in a row that we had over $10
billion natural disasters. The extreme weather, being driven by
climate change, and the cost of extreme weather being driven by
our economic development, are only going to get worse. We just
have to get ahead of it.
So I think as was indicated, the focus on resilience in
this title is essential. It has been determined that every
dollar invested by FEMA or HUD in resilience brings back $6 in
saved costs. I also think it is really essential that we think
broadly about how we are going to pay for our disaster
resilience going forward. I think this Committee can do a lot
of good if we brought disaster relief on budget, so that we
actually thought about the full costs of our natural disasters
and made the right kind of investments in resilience.
Senator Barrasso. Ms. Goldfuss, I am out of time, so if you
could briefly respond, because as you talked about, the best
time to do something was 20 years ago; the second best time is
today. I heard the same about planting a tree; best time to
plant a tree 20 years ago; second best time is today. What are
your thoughts on the resilience issue, and the benefits?
Ms. Goldfuss. I think it is critical, as this Committee has
done, to really focus on the States making this decision as
well, because every State is different. The impacts of extreme
weather are really regional and depend on what the conditions
are in that State.
So this is really the step that needs to become the norm in
the future, as we experience more and more extreme weather. We
have the tools, we have the information to plan for this. It is
irresponsible to not spend the taxpayer dollars in a way that
accounts for that.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I just sat here listening to our witnesses, Mr. Chairman,
and colleagues. We usually have very, very well spoken
witnesses, thought provoking testimony, and excellent
responses. But I think today it is especially so.
I just wonder, have any of you been on a debate team?
Seriously, a debate team, in college?
Mr. Grumet, I see you raised your hand. Where did you go to
school?
Mr. Grumet. I was at Brown University. I actually had the
privilege of debating with Senator Coons.
Senator Carper. No kidding.
Mr. Grumet. He was even good back then.
Senator Carper. He still talks about that.
Anybody else? Maybe anybody else in the room?
Maybe we will get Johns Hopkins. Somebody in this room that
you might have come across, come up against, like Mary Frances
Repko?
Mr. Grumet. Mary Frances--you are setting me up, Senator.
Yes, Mary Frances was a terror at the lectern.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. I don't win many arguments with her,
either.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Ms. Goldfuss, were you really?
Ms. Goldfuss. Yes, and I also went to Brown University.
Mr. Grumet. We didn't get out much, so the corona crisis
actually brings us back to our college experiences of basically
being by ourselves in our dorms reading our debate text.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Goldfuss. Ranking Member Carper, you have to ask who
won the debate.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. You can respond for the record.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. This question is for all of you, we will
start with Mr. Lanham, then Jason, and then Christy Goldfuss.
Our ATIA bill includes the very first ever climate title in
a highway bill. As some of you have noted, it makes $10 billion
of investments in resilience of our infrastructure, recharging
and refueling stations to support the use of clean vehicles and
planning to reduce emissions. We added these provisions because
our Committee members on both sides of the aisle saw a need for
a new program to help States respond to the extreme weather
that they are regularly facing.
The House today is considering legislation that would make
additional investments in similar programs, although some are
structured differently than our own.
A question for each of you: What are the benefits of
addressing climate risks to our transportation systems in the
surface transportation reauthorization? And conversely, what
are the risks to safety and the economy of failing to address
the current and future impact of climate change on our roads,
highways, bridges, and other transportation systems?
Mr. Lanham, would you lead us off, please?
Mr. Lanham. Thank you, Ranking Member Carper. I think that
the need to address climate change is now rather than later. We
talk about the severe weather, that plays right into the need
to address it.
Senator Carper. Are you from Houston?
Mr. Lanham. I am.
Senator Carper. I was there, I was there right on the heels
of Hurricane Harvey.
Mr. Lanham. Yes, you talk about building, mitigating
infrastructure; we had 3 feet of water over everything. It was
kind of hard to go anywhere.
The States need to be able to adapt and use the grant
program under your ATIA in a flexible manner to approach it.
But I think this all plays to the immediate need for resiliency
in our infrastructure.
But how it gets defined, leaving this broad enough so each
one--is it seismic retrofit out west, or is it flood
evacuation? We can't lift Houston 3 feet if that much water
falls. But we can see to the safe evacuation of all because we
have resilient infrastructure in place that will allow for safe
evacuation of people in the event of a hurricane that strikes
the Gulf Coast.
I think you have set up that mechanism of which each of the
States can address that to their own devices, their own
peculiar and unique needs. But it is something that needs to be
pushed now.
Senator Carper. Thank you so much.
Mr. Grumet, same question, and I'll ask you to try to be
brief.
Mr. Grumet. I will try to be brief, and it will be
difficult, because this is a passion of mine, Senator.
I believe that the effort to integrate climate concerns and
the facilitation of building new infrastructure is a real
inflection point that has truly the potential to shift the
climate debate. We have been in a terribly stalemated position
in which advocates for climate change have found themselves
opposing modernity, and opposing new infrastructure.
When you look at the scale of the challenge, we have to
build things many, many times faster, many, many times larger,
many, many times bigger than we ever have before in human
history. We are going to have to do all kinds of incredible,
incredible projects.
And our regulatory structure right now does not tolerate
success. So rather than focusing on single projects and single
pipelines and fighting about doing brown things slow, we have
to have a new coalition that comes together to build the future
fast.
I think that the climate advocacy community, if it sees the
Congress moving toward solutions on climate change, will get
past that kind of resistance to building things and actually
recognize that the thing that we need more than anything to
solve the climate challenge is to figure out how to modernize
and facilitate faster construction of new, modern
infrastructure.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Thank you for those words.
Ms. Goldfuss, please, same question.
Ms. Goldfuss. Just quickly, we have seen with coronavirus
that our economic system is not immune to external shocks. And
climate is going to be a huge external shock, the cost of
bridges, the cost of roads, mortgages when communities are
underwater and the homes aren't worth as much as they were
before. This is something we have to plan for, and in building
resilience into our infrastructure, we are planning to be
stronger in the future.
I completely agree that the climate community has come
around to the fact that infrastructure policy is climate
policy, and that we must build bigger, stronger, and faster.
But we have to have the tools in place, and we have to make
sure that the processes work.
So resilience being baked into the equation from the
beginning is essential to make sure that we have sound
infrastructure and that also we protect our economy and protect
communities.
Senator Carper. Thanks.
Mr. Chairman, we might want to invite more debate team
members to come before us. These folks are really exceptional.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. And we don't need to limit it to Brown
University, either.
Senator Whitehouse. I think we should.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. What has Brown done for you lately?
[Laughter.]
Senator Barrasso. Senator Whitehouse may have a specific
recommendation regarding the best of Brown.
Senator Whitehouse. We Rhode Islanders are very proud of
Brown.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank our panel. What a difference a year has
made. We know 11 months ago we approved ATIA, and in a
unanimous, bipartisan fashion it came through our Subcommittee.
We worked with Senator Cardin. And of course I appreciate the
Chairman and Ranking Member kind of pulling it over the finish
line. I think today it is now more deserving than ever that we
take it, not just from the full Committee, but up to the full
Senate and enact it into law.
I think COVID-19 has hammered our national economy. All
three of you talked about that. It has really carried cost.
Installing the investments, for example, in my State of
West Virginia, driving on deficient roads costs West Virginia
drivers $866 million per year, a hidden expense of about $754
per person, due to vehicle wear, depreciation, extra fuel. We
do have some difficult terrain at times to get around. But it
can also contribute to fatalities and injuries. And that costs
money and obviously lives, which is very difficult.
I think that for places like West Virginia--I am just going
to mention some that I think will be particularly important in
this bill. The Nitro-St. Albans Bridge, which is I-64 outside
of Charleston, and completing Corridor H, which is the last
really planned part of the Appalachian Development Highway
System, which goes through the center of our State, which has
been being built for decades. We want to see that complete.
So I was proud to work with the regulatory streamlining
provisions that are in here. Getting the permitting is
absolutely critical.
Mr. Lanham, I have been on transportation for many years.
Obviously here, and then over in the House, I was on the House
Transportation Committee.
We have had a lot of stops and starts over the years, where
we have had 3 month extensions, 6 month extensions, not quite
as long as even a year. I know you have been in business for a
while, and I am sure your company has been held hostage by the
stops and starts and the sputtering of those acts as we did
that over the last several years.
What kind of impact does that have on a company like yours,
on your ability to get these large projects done, if we are
only extending for 6 months, or extending for 3 months? Could
you make a comment on that?
Mr. Lanham. Senator, it is devastating to the program. One,
because almost all these significant projects are multi-year
projects. So unless there is funding certainty, according to
Federal rules, the transportation plan is fiscally constrained.
So unless they have the funding in place, those significant
projects fall off the immediate plan. Or they trade funding for
other essential projects and bundle it into the one.
But the overall system loses. The effect to businesses like
ours is we lose opportunity. Then when there is reduced
opportunity, we are laying people off.
Senator Capito. Right. That is what I was going to ask.
Mr. Lanham. In 2008, we laid off 30 percent of the company.
Senator Capito. In 2008?
Mr. Lanham. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Capito. Are you back up, or were you back up?
Mr. Lanham. We are getting close, but it took a decade.
Senator Capito. And those are jobs that are good paying
jobs; they sustain a lot of families in Texas, and certainly
across the country.
I am interested to know, too, during the COVID experience
that you had, did you have to furlough some of your employees?
Mr. Lanham. Senator, no. We were blessed in our
jurisdiction to be deemed an essential and critical activity.
We capitalized on that. Now, we did operate safely, and
instituted all the protocols in the workplace deemed
appropriate and recommended.
And we were able to advance projects and advance the
schedule on projects because of the shutdown and the reduced
traffic demand. Because we are strictly a road and bridge
builder. So the reduced amount of cars, we advanced projects 2
and 3 months in the schedule because of that.
Senator Capito. I guess there are some hidden nuggets of
good news that happened during this time.
I was interested to hear, Mr. Grumet, you mentioned
pipelines. In my State, we have two major pipelines that have
been stalled in the courts for years. I think it is
unreasonable to think that to get to the environmental goals of
some of the community who think they are all of a sudden going
to be accepting of pipelines is because they fight them every
step of the way. Even though they have been lawfully, the one
just went to the Supreme Court, on the permitting process.
I am very pleased that the NDAA includes a bill that
Senator Whitehouse and I have worked on together, from both
sides of the aisle, it is called the USE IT Act. What it does
is it works with the creation of pipelines to carry that
CO2 to other energy producing sites. Hopefully, that
will have some impact.
But we all have to get--if we are going to modernize and
build and use our own natural resources, this pipeline stalling
and using legal tactics to really off the projects is deeply
troubling to me and my region of the country. Certainly, it has
to be troubling to the Northeast, where our resource aren't
able to help those folks up there have more affordable energy
costs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank
all the panelists. I am sorry I have to do this through the
Internet, and not be there in person to join you. But let me
thank you all.
I just really want to underscore first the points that have
been made by my colleagues. Senator Capito and I have worked
very closely together in regard to infrastructure. I am very
proud that we are able to do that in a bipartisan manner to
advance infrastructure legislation. We have done that certainly
on the surface transportation. We have also done it on the
Water Resources Development Act.
But I think we all understand how important the COVID-19
was for us to move forward with infrastructure in this country.
We are still in triage, so we are still dealing directly with
the pandemic, dealing directly with the immediate economic
impact. But we also need to recognize that when we come out of
COVID-19, there is going to be a need for us to create jobs.
Because many of the jobs that were here before COVID-19 are
going to be lost, and we need to create jobs.
Investing in infrastructure helps us create jobs. And that
is one of the real pluses here. We need to have a chapter this
year pass that puts us on the growth for infrastructure
improvement. At the end of the day, when we do that, we not
only create jobs, we have a better community for the people to
live in.
But here has been the key of the Environment and Public
Works Committee. This is really what I want to emphasize,
because I know we are having discussions about how we deal with
resiliency, how we deal with a balanced program, how do we deal
with issues such as transportation alternative programs. And
there are different views in our Committee on that. And that is
understandable. But we have been able to come together with a
bipartisan product because we have listened to each other.
So yes, we need to build roads, and build and improve
bridges. I can give you two in Maryland that need to be
replaced, the Johnson Bridge, the Nice Bridge, we need to make
sure we do that.
But we also have to invest in maintenance and maintain our
current infrastructure. We have to invest in transit. In
Maryland, the Purple Line is now under construction. The Purple
Line is critically important for the traffic jams that we have
in the Washington, DC, area.
So we need to invest both in roads and bridges, but also in
transit. Yes, we need a very strong, robust Federal
partnership, but that can't be dominant from the point of view
of local decisionmaking. But that is why the Transportation
Alternative Program is a critically important part of our
Surface Transportation Act.
Bipartisan efforts; I was on the phone earlier this week
with our tourism industry. Obviously, it has very much been
impacted by COVID-19. But they stressed to me the importance of
TAP funding in order to deal with local priorities that can
help their local economy and a better quality of life for the
community that they serve.
So we have to be mindful of that. We also need to have
opportunities where it is appropriate for public-private
partnership. These are all issues that we want to deal with.
But the issue that--I just heard the last discussion with
Senator Carper, dealing with resiliency, dealing with
adaptation, dealing with smart transportation alternatives for
our environment, such as electric vehicles. All that needs to
be part of a balanced package so that we can continue to enjoy
strong, bipartisan support for a robust infrastructure program
that can pass the Congress and be signed into law.
I want to ask Ms. Goldfuss a question, sort of to tail onto
something you have already talked about. And that is, there is
always the issue of whether it is going to be good for the
environment or good for our economy. I think that is a false
choice, and I want to give you an opportunity to explain how
when you invest in smart environmental policies, including in
transportation, it is actually a plus for our economy. I will
give you an opportunity to expand on that if you might.
Ms. Goldfuss. Thank you, Senator. It is absolutely a false
choice, and the American public believes that. If you have good
governance, if you have a Federal Government that knows how to
move through a process, then you can have both good community
engagement and understanding of the clean water impacts, the
clean air impacts that are going to come from a project. You
also will understand how to use the taxpayers' money in a sound
way.
But that is the bare minimum that the American public
expects, that they are going to have clean air and clean water,
and they are going to have safe bridges and safe roads. So to
say that one has to be sacrificed for the other, or that one
needs to be put aside for the other, is wrong on both sides. We
have got to do them both. That is the expectation. And with the
processes and a strong government that understands how to move
through the process and engage the public, you can have both.
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you and
Senator Carper, for holding this hearing, which is so
important.
Mr. Lanham, as you know, America has a complex
transportation system in dire need of repair. Without our
Nation's rail network, barges, and trucks, much of our economy
would become stagnant. We all agree on the importance of
infrastructure investment, but if we rely too heavily on one
mode of transportation, we do ourselves a disservice.
When commerce is strong, it is because of our intermodal
system. I believe it is important that we invest in all of its
components.
Will you explain how water, road, and rail all rely on each
other in a cost effective and efficient commerce system? In
fact, I think J.B. Hunt--their headquarters happens to be about
5 miles from where I live--I think they are one of the biggest
customers, maybe the biggest customer, of the railroads in the
sense of the ability to use containers on trucks and rails and
how that works together.
Mr. Lanham. Senator, we have a multi-faceted transportation
network. It is probably a lot more complex than most people
would even realize. When it comes to the movement of goods and
services, rail, truck, rails out of ports to distribution
centers onto trucks, just exactly as you described, Senator.
With regard to much of our public infrastructure, it is also
the conveyance of clean water in our water system.
So the importance of water right now, just to leave a
point, is probably in--we refer to it back home in Texas, it is
the new gold. Without water, we have no life. It is an
essential element. It is part of our infrastructure network
that we critically, critically need to take care of. It almost
always occupies the public right of way that holds a road,
almost always, somewhere.
So they are both so significant in purpose to when we talk
about the quality of life of Americans in our infrastructure
investment in the broadest sense, that is exactly what we are
saying. Clean water, great transportation network, affordable
goods and services to the average citizen. They can enjoy a
quality of life that is unprecedented. We have grown to expect
that in this Nation, and we need to continue that investment.
The challenges that we face are going to require
unprecedented levels of investment.
Senator Boozman. As we have on time delivery, things like
that, the efficiency being so much greater than it used to be,
what does that do for the environment?
Ms. Goldfuss. Yes, for the environment, it is important to
have the information about where the projects are going to be.
That allows you to understand what places should be protected,
what places are necessary for clean water and clean air, and
where we can actually have development that will be----
Senator Boozman. As far as just moving goods and services
efficiently, where you are not running your truck or your, the
inefficiencies on our waterways that occur sometimes, what does
that do?
All of this, again, working together, if we have system
that works well, works efficiently, we get rid of the areas of
congestion that we have that, again, the on time delivery
system, which has been such, we have experienced some problems
with that, with COVID. And we need to address that in the
future.
But the system really does work very well. So getting these
things right, besides being more efficient, more cost effective
and things like that, it is also very helpful for the
environment, too.
Ms. Goldfuss. Certainly, the grant programs that you have
in this bill around ports and around diesel emissions
reduction, anything that is more efficient reduces pollution.
And that clearly reduces the impact in the environment. That is
going to be essential for us to get those systems right, so
that we are able to calibrate and make sure that we get those
pollution reductions that we need.
Senator Boozman. OK. Very good.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
First, let me welcome not one but two Brown University
graduates. This is a big day for Rhode Island in the Committee.
And let me thank the Chairman for his concern for
bipartisanship in infrastructure. I think that the Chairman's
concern for bipartisanship in infrastructure could well be met
by a conference between the Republican controlled Senate and
the Democratic controlled House on an infrastructure bill if we
can get it through the Senate floor. So I am all for getting
our bill through the floor, and moving to conference.
My question for the witnesses has to do with geography. As
you know, Rhode Island is a very coastal State.
Thank you, Chairman, for mentioning hurricane season,
something that does not hit landlocked Wyoming, but is a big
deal for our coastal States.
I wanted to consider some of the things that we face on
coasts. We oversee the Army Corps here. If you can believe it,
there is a fund at the Army Corps called the Flood and Coastal
Damage Reduction Fund. But if you look at how much of the money
in it gets spent on coasts, on a good year, it is $1 out of
$20. In a bad year, it is $1 out of $120.
So here is the Army Corps in theory having this fund for
coasts, and ignoring coasts almost completely.
We have just passed, with my support, the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. I am very sorry that we were not given the
chance to add a bipartisan amendment that would have passed to
increase funding for coasts. Because as we know, the Land and
Water Conservation Fund is an upland and inland program. For
every dollar that goes to inland States, only 40 cents per
capita goes to a coastal State.
And in the coastal State, a lot of that 40 cents gets spent
in Texas, in Pennsylvania, and New York, on projects that are
not coastal. So if you dig deeper, the bias in the Land and
Water Conservation Fund against coasts is far worse than the
two to one that you would think, just looking at the States
themselves. Unfortunately, we weren't able to get anything for
coasts until the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
On wind energy, we see in Wyoming and across the country
wind energy development happening very rapidly. In our coastal
States, with one exception, Rhode Island, we have offshore wind
energy that is completely tangled up in siting, and we have a
Trump administration that seems only to care about
environmental concerns when it can put them in front of
offshore wind. Because what offshore wind does is it displaces
natural gas, and the people making these decisions come
straight out of the fossil fuel industry.
So again, coasts are getting treated like second class
citizens.
Of course, we face things that other States don't, which is
that our shores will actually disappear. We are actually going
to lose parts of our State to sea level rise.
I would like to put a recent article from the Providence
Journal titled Rising Threat: New Study Finds Thousands More
Properties at Risk of Flooding, into the record, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection, so ordered.
[The referenced information follows:]5
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. So my question to the panel is, should
we not be focusing a lot in infrastructure on coasts? Not just
the infrastructure that is at risk along the coast, but also
the infrastructure that can support them as they take the
beating that climate change has steering toward them right now.
Mr. Grumet. Senator, on behalf of the whole panel, I can
assure you that we all believe that coastal preservation and
resiliency is essential.
I want to pick up quickly two points you made. You
mentioned offshore wind. I think offshore wind is the poster
child for what we need to do to improve our permitting
structure in service of a sustainable climate. We have an
incredible resource base in this country for offshore wind.
They are building offshore wind in Europe.
We do not have a technological challenge in this country.;
we have a bureaucracy challenge in this country. And if we
can't figure out how to streamline and modernize our permitting
system, we are going to lose that incredible opportunity, both
economic opportunity and environmental opportunity.
I would step back and think more broadly about our disaster
relief system in general. It tends to be kind of a mess. It
tends to be a mess because we focus on disaster relief mostly
in the middle of natural disasters, which of course the worst
time to be thinking about forward looking cost-benefit analysis
and planning. It is the time you have to be thinking about
people who are suffering immediate harm.
I think one of the problems, as I mentioned earlier, is we
don't pay for our disasters. We are surprised year over year by
very predictable events. We do emergency off budget funding.
And we try to raise money, but do not do the kind of rigorous
planning that you are suggesting is necessary.
If we had to grapple, if this Congress had to grapple with
appropriating a trillion dollars of disaster relief funds, I
think that would focus the mind in a different way. I think you
would start to see a more equitable resource allocation that I
think would probably address some of your concerns about
coastal resources.
Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Chairman, I am over the time, so if
I could ask the other two witnesses to respond as a question
for the record, I would appreciate it.
And if I may take a Rhode Island moment, I would like to
say that there is a reason that the only offshore wind located
anywhere in the United States is sited in Rhode Island. It is
because Rhode Island figured out how to solve the siting
problem.
It really wasn't all that complicated. It begins with
bringing everybody who has an interest in the location into the
same room and sorting out the really obvious stupid questions,
getting them off the table, getting them all sorted out before
you begin the application process. And then you can use the
process to sort through further details.
Unfortunately, both the other companies that came into this
process, including a Massachusetts company that should have
known better, and the Administration, despite having that
winning program right in front of them, that process right in
front of them, decided to go completely different ways. As a
result, we are still all totally bolloxed up. It is
unfortunate. I hope that it is not also driven by a bad motive.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you so very much.
Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
hearing more than you know. It really is incredible for me to
see the depth and level that we have of bipartisan spirit here.
I heard a mention earlier of the Bayonne Bridge. I remember
how frustrated I was to see a lot of the challenges we had in
terms of getting a lot of the approvals necessary for projects
that were utterly essential.
And so I just want to first and foremost ask the panel to
reaffirm something that I really believe, that there is a large
bipartisan sense of urgency in our country to do what is
necessary in this area. We are a Nation that, this is not a
left or a right issue, it is really about moving forward.
I know this was mentioned earlier, but if you could
specifically talk about this false dichotomy between affirming
the environmental urgencies of this moment and making sure that
we also get projects done in a timely way that honors the
taxpayer dollar.
I know that there are issues; the Eisenhower Highway Act
would be about a trillion dollars' worth of infrastructure
investment if it was done today. But we wouldn't get as far
today because of a lot of the challenges of approvals and the
like.
But I really do believe that there is a resonance between
streamlining and looking forward and getting major projects
done.
In New Jersey, there is an outrageous urgency, for example,
to get the tunnels under the Hudson River, it has been at the
heart, at the center of so much of my work, working across the
aisle with then-Governor Chris Christie, and Democrat Chuck
Schumer, to get us all on the same page, to create a
streamlining process to get something done quickly that
ultimately, when done, will have a massive environmental
positive impact on our region.
So I just react against a lot of the gridlock, and I am
really working to smooth the sort of partisan fissures to get
things done. I would just love to have the panel affirm that
sense of urgency I feel, and that sense of conviction I feel
that this is not a left or right issue.
This is about moving our Nation forward, about seizing
opportunities, about adding to our economy, and ultimately,
frankly, it is about making sure that we seize the chance to
show that infrastructure and the environment are not only
resonant, but we cannot deal with our climate change challenges
without forging ahead far more aggressively on the
infrastructure projects, major infrastructure projects in our
country.
If the panel would comment on that, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Grumet. Senator, this is Jason Grumet. If I can just
jump in. I think the urgency is there, and the opportunity is
there, but it is going to have to be seized by this Committee.
For too long, those who have been focused on infrastructure
have been disinterested in climate change. And those who have
been focused on climate change have been disinterested in
infrastructure. We are all losing. We are not solving the
climate problem, we are not increasing the strength of our
economy, and we are not addressing our resiliency issues.
This Committee has taken a very bold, and modest, but very
bold step to reconcile those two different views. I think the
combination of our economic crisis, which is not going to be a
V shaped recovery, and the growing bipartisan appreciation that
we have a climate crisis, which we can solve with a broad based
set of solutions, not just renewables and energy efficiency,
but a broad based, non-carbon set of solutions that include
nuclear power and CCS and battery storage. I think we are at
moment now, at an inflection point, where we can get our arms
around this whole debate and really push things forward.
But we are not on track toward success. We have made
tremendous strides in renewable power. It is now about 10
percent of our overall on the grid. We now have to get from 10
percent to 80 or 90 percent in 30 years.
So I do not believe we will seize this moment unless this
Committee leads the effort to reconcile a shared climate
vision.
The climate change issue has been a proxy fight in
infrastructure project after infrastructure project. It is a
losing battle, because it is not solving the climate problem,
and it is not solving our economic problem. So I think there is
a real important accomplishment in this piece of legislation
that we really need to focus on and build upon, and build upon
quickly.
Senator Booker. Thank you.
Anybody else who would like to comment?
Mr. Lanham. One brief comment, Senator. The environment and
meeting the public need for infrastructure is not mutually
exclusive. We know that and understand that. But for both sides
now, what we have to have is a process where there is
accountability.
We all can tell war stories on both sides of the issue. The
abuse of the system and abuse of the process would either work
to the detriment of the environment or work to the detriment of
a public improvement. That is not what this Committee is about,
and there needs to be accountability in the implementation of
the vision this Committee is putting forward. Without that
accountability, we are going to continue to stumble and have
these problems in the execution.
Senator Booker. Ms. Goldfuss, before you answer, I want to
throw one more question on top for you.
I was a former mayor who was in office during the Great
Recession. I know firsthand that during economic downturns,
like we are in right now, local governments face challenges.
Right now there is an additional need for Federal
infrastructure investment to rebuild our Nation's
infrastructure, frankly, and address a lot of the economic
challenges we have. It is one of the best times to spend money
because the cost of capital is so much cheaper.
I just want to get a little bit deeper with you on the old
rail tunnels and the related infrastructure between New York
and New Jersey. This literally is where the Northeast region,
which is one of the greatest economic regions on the entire
planet, it is among the most critical infrastructure projects
we have in our country right now. I believe that our whole
country really is relying upon us, on the busiest rail corridor
in all of North America, in doing something urgently.
This is a project I want you to comment on. Because if we
do not act immediately to advance the Gateway Program, not only
will New Jerseyans continue to suffer and see regional economic
harm, but it will cause a harm to the entire Northeast region
because of the countless hours of delay that we see, from
affecting individual families, to regional economy. Should the
tunnel shut down, it would be cataclysmic in terms of the
effect on the economy, costing us about $100 million each day.
On the other hand, though, on the positive side, every
dollar that we invest in the Gateway Program provides $4 in
return to our economy. So in this time especially this project
will create jobs, boost the economy, improve safety and the
quality of life for New Jersey commuters.
So I just want to ask you, in addition to the previous
question, and then I will cede my time, but can you discuss the
need for, on large scale projects like this, of national
significance, in the context of a comprehensive Federal plan
for stimulus economic recovery?
The Gateway Program in particular, it is important to note
that these tunnels are just an example of the importance and
effectiveness of NEPA, the NEPA process when it comes to large
scale infrastructure.
So it is incredible that we have so many stakeholders
nationally in a project like this, but we are still struggling
with something as simple as an environmental impact statement
with the Department of Transportation. I am so frustrated that
we are years into this Administration and it continues to
refuse to even finalize an environmental impact statement which
will allow us to go forward.
So I am just hoping that, Ms. Goldfuss, you could comment
on that frustration as an example, frankly, of how the lack of
efficiency within our bureaucracies, and this truly profound
impact it has on economic development on jobs, on the
environment as well.
Ms. Goldfuss. Senator, I would just speak to your project
and also the offshore wind projects that Senator Whitehouse
raised. In both of these cases, there was very concerning
evidence that politics has come into play in the environmental
review process. Secretary Bernhardt is hugely critical of the
environmental review process, yet decided to slap an entirely
new set of environmental reviews on the offshore wind projects.
It makes no sense.
Similarly, with the Gateway Project, we have clear evidence
of the Trump administration and officials joking about slowing
down the environmental review for the Gateway Project.
I know this Committee does not believe that politics should
be involved in these major, major infrastructure projects that
would put people back to work. I am hoping that we are seizing
on a moment here where we need to put people back to work.
There is an understanding that we need funding and investment
in communities to do that. And we will find a way to remove the
politics, understanding that jobs, whether they are around New
York City, jobs offshore in Rhode Island, jobs in Wyoming, in
any part of this country are going to be essential to the
recovery coming out of this recession.
Senator Booker. I will just say in conclusion, this is so
utterly unacceptable, that something as simple as an
environmental impact statement, which we have been waiting for
for 2 years, this is clearly an example of not just
bureaucracy, but playing politics with the most important
infrastructure project in North America, and arguably because
of its economic impact, not to mention its environmental
impact.
Just to travel from Boston to Washington, DC, we now move
at half an hour slower than we did in the 1960s on the busiest
rail corridor in America. It is absurd. It is unacceptable.
China has built 18,000 miles of high speed rail. Our
busiest rail corridor in America moves half an hour slower than
it did in the 1960s.
I am tired of the politics. This is outrageous. I have been
working in a bipartisan manner with people on this Committee
and others, with Roger Wicker and others, to advance this
project, to change legislation, to get everything done.
Now we are facing hold ups within the Trump administration
that are pure politics. There is no way to deny that. You can't
even get this environmental impact statement. It is
frustrating.
When this whole Committee hearing is talking about
smoothing, expediting, getting things done, for the sake of our
Nation and patriotism, it is so offensive to me that this
project is being stalled because of politics, and really
unacceptably hurting this country, our economy, and the well
being of families in New Jersey and beyond.
I will submit the rest of my questions for the record.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I ask unanimous consent to submit into the record a letter
from scholars across disciplines, which studied the National
Environmental Policy Act in Federal decisionmaking. In short,
the data that they have pointed to is even starker than we have
been discussing.
According to the research, far less than 1 percent of
projects involve lengthy delays. Moreover, factors other than
NEPA will likely contribute to the overall duration of these
projects as well.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection, so ordered.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thank you, sir.
One question, if I may, for Ms. Goldfuss, please. In your
written testimony, you cited a report by the Rhodium Group that
was released on June 29th, 2020, I guess it was just a couple
of days ago. As you stated the report found that, ``The average
Black American is exposed to 46 percent more diesel particulate
matter emissions and 22 percent more air toxic respiratory
hazards than White Americans.''
Given those statistics, it seems that where and how we
engage with communities to build new roads in the future could
help reduce this kind of pollution exposure.
My question is simply, would you discuss how the existing
NEPA processes, when conducted appropriately, could help
communities address environmental injustices in transportation
projects as well as build infrastructure more expeditiously and
save taxpayers money, please?
Ms. Goldfuss. Thank you. When we conduct community
engagement in an appropriate way, we identify the problems
before we even start to build. So what are the concerns that a
community raises about pollution, about location, about impacts
to the costs of their community?
In addition to that, we are able to share data about the
particulate matter that is expected from a particular project,
or about the other toxic pollution that could be a part of
whatever development we need.
Last, we are able to look at how that is layered upon the
other development and the other impacts in that community.
I always talk about Mossville, Louisiana, which is
surrounded by 12 petrochemical plants. It is in Cancer Alley.
This particular community, it would be insane to propose
another project, another industrial project, without looking at
how you are adding to the overall toxic burden of that
community, rather than some place in a remote place where this
would be the only facility.
So when the NEPA process has done well, when we are
building off of data from different agencies, and we are
incorporating the feedback from communities, you get to a place
where you are able to resolve problems, so that a project can
go faster, and that you are able to understand what the impact
is and what the concern is going to be at a local level before
you get too far down the road, and site the project in a place
where you will have the least amount of conflict.
So I know that is the rosiest vision of how NEPA would
work. But that is how it should work. If we have the tools, and
there are tons of data tools, state of the art tools that we
can use to expedite that process. And we have the will of a
Federal Government that wants to listen to the people, not just
the companies.
Mr. Grumet. Senator Carper, can I just add that in addition
to the project focused decisionmaking, we know we have two
imperatives. We have an absolute imperative to build major
projects very quickly. And we have an imperative not to
exacerbate disparate impact on communities of color that have
been burdened by environmental justice concerns.
We don't have to wait for a project to be proposed to
understand the scope of these two challenges. What Congress
tried to do in the 2005 Energy Policy Act was look forward and
say, Where should we build things? What are the critical
corridors? How do we step back and say, We are going to need
thousands of miles of power lines and pipelines and battery
storage facilities and renewables. Where are the right places
to put those, and where are the wrong places to put those?
We should be getting ahead of this conversation and
understand in the communities that have been unfairly imposed
upon and protecting those communities, not stumble into these
processes one after one after one. We have a national
imperative to do both these things at once.
I think NEPA is a tool, but it is not the only tool we
should be thinking about. I think we need a much more proactive
national planning process that tries to reconcile these two
concerns.
Senator Carper. Thank you both very much for what you have
said.
I would ask Bob Lanham, if you have a comment or thought
you would like to make before we conclude? Anything else you
would like to add?
Mr. Lanham. Senator, I appreciate, again, the opportunity
to be here. It is amazing.
I would leave with you, I had the pleasure and privilege
about 18 months ago--and much of the dialogue was the same 18
months ago.
One thing a little bit absent that still I think is germane
to our transportation network is based on what I see us do each
and every day, building roads and bridges has to be one of the
most sustainable construction processes in the country. Yet it
is a story that we do not tell.
Between 2001 and 2009, we reconstructed 24 miles of
Interstate 10 west of downtown Houston. And every bit of the
concrete and base materials and pavements that were in the
existing roadway was recycled and reused.
Senator Carper. That is great.
Mr. Lanham. Those stories around the country are not told.
I think we do ourselves a disservice to not being able to
explain to the greater public about what actually happens on
these projects.
Senator Carper. Good. I am glad I asked, and I am glad you
answered. That was a good note to close on.
Mr. Chairman, this has been an extraordinary panel and I
think quite a productive hearing.
Thank you all.
Senator Barrasso. We thank all of you as well for being
here, for joining us, and for sharing your great insights on
these very important topics.
There are no other questions today, but there is going to
be an opportunity for some members to submit some written
questions. They may do that in the next couple of weeks, so we
are going to keep the hearing record open for 2 weeks.
I want to just thank you again for being here. It was very
helpful. I am glad you were able to get out of the house for
the first time in 3 months. We will have to have you back again
some time soon. Thank you to all three of you.
With that, I do have a unanimous consent request for
materials for the record. Unanimous consent to enter into the
record a statement from the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, and a statement from the
National Sand, Stone and Gravel Association in support of
today's hearing.
Without objection, they will be submitted to the record.
[The referenced information was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Barrasso. With that, the hearing is adjourned.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]