[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H1183-H1184]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                             INFRASTRUCTURE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2019, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Speaker, I want to talk today about 
infrastructure, and I start with the confession that I was lied to as a 
child. In fact, my whole generation was lied to. We were told time and 
again by nearly every futuristic TV show or movie that by now we would 
all be traveling around on jetpacks and hoverboards. But we are still 
waiting.
  And while we wait, we have to grapple with the fact that we need to 
use roads wherever we are going and that our outdated infrastructure is 
nowhere near where it needs to be.

                              {time}  1715

  Few issues we debate here in Washington, D.C., impact the day-to-day 
lives of our constituents more directly than infrastructure. Yet, 
fixing our infrastructure has become a running joke, with seemingly 
every week derisively dubbed infrastructure week.
  It may be infrastructure week this week. We don't know. But 
infrastructure should not be an afterthought or a back-burner priority 
we deal with only when we have more money--which we don't--or when we 
are in a true infrastructure crisis. Even in December's $1.4 trillion 
spending deal, in which seemingly every lobbyist in D.C. got a 
Christmas present, infrastructure was largely ignored.
  Yet, infrastructure should not be impossible to tackle. Even as 
progress on a comprehensive package has eluded Congress in recent 
years, we have generated important bipartisan wins, like the 2-year 
Coast Guard reauthorization and reforms to better utilize the harbor 
maintenance trust fund to support critical projects at ports 
nationwide. There are plenty more easy bipartisan wins waiting on the 
sidelines--such as the Safe Routes Act, the Motorcyclist Advisory 
Council Reauthorization Act, and the Promoting Women in Trucking 
Workforce Act--that we could pass in the House tomorrow and make our 
roads safer and grow our workforce in key industries.
  I know these are small fixes that will not solve all of America's 
infrastructure needs, but they would represent tangible progress in a 
divided Congress that would improve transportation in communities like 
mine in northeast Wisconsin. But we can't be content to stop there.
  Even though now, in the midst of the craziness that comes with the 
Presidential election cycle, it is hard to imagine a comprehensive 
infrastructure bill passing both the House and the Senate, I think we 
should all agree that does not mean we should punt on thinking through 
more systemic infrastructure issues.
  As we consider how the Federal Government can best support States, 
set national standards, and promote infrastructure, there are three 
principles that we should keep in mind.
  First, we need to better understand where Federal money goes. Before 
spending $1 trillion on infrastructure, Congress needs to understand 
where and how Federal money is being spent. You may ask yourself: Don't 
we already know that? No, unfortunately, we have shockingly little 
definitive information about America's infrastructure needs and how 
much they cost.
  Given this opacity, it is no wonder that we often see huge, 
exorbitant figures quoted for infrastructure costs. For instance, right 
now, there is no definitive estimate of the cost difference in building 
a highway with Federal as opposed to non-Federal dollars. This should 
not be difficult to determine. All it takes is finding projects of 
similar design and geography and comparing them.
  Any Wisconsin family would compare relative costs before a big 
construction project. Why should the Federal Government be any 
different?
  The problem is that what little top-line information we have on 
highways is based on data from 2007 to 2014. Now, the Federal Highway 
Administration reports only on what Congress has asked them to report. 
Up until now, that has not included cost analysis on highway projects. 
This has to change.
  Congress should require the Department of Transportation to compare 
the costs of projects that use Federal funds and those that don't. We 
should know the breakdown of costs for planning and design, materials, 
labor, and compliance to understand how to better protect taxpayer 
money.
  We should also require the Department to compare States so we can see 
which States are more efficient and figure out why they are more 
efficient.
  What is more, we need up-to-date data on the comparative health of 
infrastructure across the country. Outside groups can provide a 
valuable perspective, but it is our responsibility as Congress to 
ensure we have validated, independent data from the States themselves.
  For instance, we frequently hear that America has earned a D-plus 
grade on infrastructure. That is pretty bad. That is a failing grade on 
infrastructure, but compared to what standard and to what other 
country? We should have quantifiable comparisons to other developed 
nations. Are we getting relative bang for our buck compared to the U.K. 
or Canada? It is an open question. The answers might help us find 
efficiencies and new ideas for infrastructure partnerships.
  China may have high-speed trains in its coastal cities, but they 
built them without respect to property rights or the environment. What 
is their return on investment? Does China have a plan to maintain their 
system as it decays in coming decades?
  Unless we have reliable comparisons with peer nations, ratings that 
find America has a D-plus in infrastructure lack context, lack meaning, 
and, therefore, lack all analytical value.
  Before we try to prescribe solutions to our infrastructure 
challenges, we need to get useful, validated data to help us diagnose 
our problems.
  Data is coming to define the modern economy--not jet packs, but data. 
Therefore, we should be able to fix this stuff. Yet, when it comes to 
the very engine that literally helps drive our economy from one 
location to another, we are stuck in the 20th century or even earlier 
when it comes to measuring need, progress, and required resources.
  We have to do better before we sign up for potentially hundreds of 
billions of dollars in projects.
  The second principle is that we need to recognize it is not how much 
money we spend on infrastructure but how that money is spent. One of 
the fundamental flaws in our infrastructure policy is that we tend to 
be enamored with shiny new projects while paying less attention to how 
we maintain existing roads, bridges, and ports.
  The incentives make sense, right? Everyone wants to be there at the 
ribbon-cutting for a brand-new project, building something new. No one 
wants to be there at the much less exciting and non-ribbon-cutting 
ceremony for maintenance we are doing on roads every single day.

  But the Department of Transportation's 2019 report to Congress on the 
status of the Nation's highways, bridges, and transit noted that nearly 
60 percent of Federal money spent on highway infrastructure goes to 
rehabilitating our existing system. Although that sounds substantial, 
we should remember that the siren call of infrastructure spending in 
Washington is predicated on fixing our crumbling infrastructure.
  If this is the case, then why is Congress not dedicating more 
resources to maintenance? If we truly want to fix our crumbling 
infrastructure, then any future infrastructure package must consider 
the long-term effect of deferring maintenance of existing projects for 
new construction.
  For example, the foundations underneath many of Wisconsin's roads 
were laid in the 1960s and 1970s and are nearing the end of their 
lifespans. That means that, in some cases, the foundation of 
Wisconsin's roads predates Vince Lombardi's victories in Super Bowl I 
and II.
  So why hasn't this been addressed over the years, particularly in the 
2009 stimulus, which spent over $100 billion on infrastructure? Rather 
than focusing on renewing existing roads, the stimulus bill prioritized 
Federal dollars for ``shovel-ready projects,'' which tend to be new 
highways, interchanges, and frontage roads. So, despite receiving 
almost $400 million in highway funds from the 2009 stimulus, 
Wisconsin's roads are still limping along with aging foundations.

[[Page H1184]]

  Consider that in a recent report on repair priorities, Transportation 
for America and Taxpayers for Common Sense found that even after the 
stimulus, ``The percentage of roads nationwide in poor condition 
increased from 2009 to 2017.''
  After we spent hundreds of billions of dollars on infrastructure, the 
percentage of roads nationwide in poor condition increased. That should 
tell you something is fundamentally wrong with our approach.
  Strong Towns, an infrastructure resiliency organization, has argued 
for years that governments need to consider roads as liabilities, not 
assets, because they eventually must be replaced for large sums of 
money.
  Yet, from 2009 to 2017, we collectively built 223,000 miles of new 
roads, enough new lane-miles to crisscross the entire country 83 times, 
which Repair Priorities estimates will cost another $5 billion a year 
just to keep in good condition. Think about this: $5 billion is about 
11 percent of the current size of Federal highway spending.
  As Strong Towns asks, if we devoted 100 percent of all government 
spending to repair, would we even have enough to maintain what we have 
already built? Probably not. Yet, States, with Federal dollars, are 
building more.
  The principle here is that growth of the system creates a future cost 
to the system, which explains much of our current infrastructure 
funding crisis.
  Third, and finally, we need to think innovatively about the Federal 
role in infrastructure. I often hear that our infrastructure spending 
and programs are stuck in the 1950s. If this is true, then we need to 
make sure that our infrastructure proposals aren't rehashing spending 
and regulatory regimes from the 1950s. If we keep putting the same 
broken inputs into the system, we can expect the same broken result.
  The most obvious place to start is funding. We can't just raise the 
gas tax and throw hundreds of billions of dollars at the problem. That 
is particularly true if we don't have basic data on the scale of the 
problem. That is a 1950s way of thinking.
  Even beyond the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's 
Ranking Member Sam Graves' call for proposals transitioning to a 
vehicle-miles traveled tax, there are plenty of ways that we can think 
innovatively and escape the prison of the past.
  One place to look is the permitting process. Countless billions of 
dollars are wasted in delays and ridiculous budget overruns caused by a 
regulatory maze of permitting.
  The potential for savings here is tremendous. For example, The New 
York Times recently reported that it costs the city of New York nearly 
seven times the cost to build a rail project than similar projects 
almost anywhere--seven times. When considering that just the first 
phase of the Second Avenue Subway costs $4.5 billion, even savings of 
25 percent would be enormous. There are enormous savings to be found in 
cutting down on delays and budget overruns.
  President Trump's Executive Order No. 13807 streamlines the 
permitting process by designating one Federal agency as the lead rather 
than forcing project managers to navigate through a dozen agencies. 
This should be codified into law.
  We also need commonsense reforms, like limiting the length of 
environmental impact statements to 150 pages, with a time limit of 2 
years for their completion. It should not take 10 years to do an 
environmental review, and no human being is going to read a 3,000-page 
technical document. We hurt our environment more by dragging the 
permitting process out for years while more and more cars pile up in 
traffic.

  Another innovative idea comes from our Australian allies. I am proud 
to chair the Friends of Australia Caucus with my good, Democrat friend, 
  Joe Courtney. In 2014, Australia launched an Asset Recycling 
Initiative, a 5-year program that set aside $3.3 billion in federal 
funding, which states could access if they sold or leased underutilized 
public assets to private firms. Money generated from sales or leasing 
was then reinvested into infrastructure projects at the state level. If 
states met certain criteria, the federal government would then match 
those revenues with an additional 15 percent.
  Under asset recycling, the untapped value of America's underutilized 
infrastructure could be recaptured and then recycled into other urgent 
infrastructure needs. Our Nation has more infrastructure than any other 
nation, including China. Consequently, we have perhaps untold billions 
in value frozen in underutilized assets. Leasing or selling these 
assets to private firms would not only free up that value but also 
transfer the maintenance costs to private industry.
  The potential benefits of this concept are enormous, especially if 
leveraged toward maintenance and repair of our existing system. In 
fact, the Trump administration championed this idea by proposing a 
Federal Incentives Program, setting aside $100 billion to be granted to 
States and localities that could meet the criteria of asset recycling. 
The Trump plan proposed a 20 percent Federal match--even higher than 
Australia's 15 percent.
  This was a promising idea that should not simply vanish because 
infrastructure talks broke down last year between the Speaker and the 
President. Since the essential problem in infrastructure is how to pay 
for it, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure should 
include programs exactly like these in a future infrastructure package.

                              {time}  1730

  Now, I will close shortly. I can see my colleagues who are working on 
the modernization of Congress, which is essential to fixing the 
problems I am identifying, are waiting to speak.
  But I will close by saying that I am a huge student and fan of Dwight 
Eisenhower. I spent 3 months of my life in Abilene, Kansas, staying at 
the Holiday Inn Express, doing research there--very exciting for a man 
in his twenties. But I like Ike, and I believe, like Ike, that the 
Federal Government has a role to play in infrastructure.
  During the Eisenhower administration, in partnership with Canada, the 
United States built the Saint Lawrence Seaway. His most ambitious 
domestic project, the interstate highway program, created a 41,000-mile 
road system.
  When I look at Wisconsin, I see the impact that world-class 
infrastructure has had in keeping us economically competitive, so there 
should be no doubt that we need infrastructure.
  There should also be no doubt that the current way of delivering, 
funding, and planning for infrastructure is not working. It is time to 
bring the way we think about infrastructure into the 21st century.
  By focusing on infrastructure transparency and reporting, by 
repairing what we have first before constructing anew, and by 
innovating the way we fund and construct infrastructure, we can finally 
build a sustainable 21st century foundation across the Nation, even as 
we await the coming of hoverboards and jetpacks.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________