[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION
BILL: LAYING THE FOUNDATION FOR U.S.
ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB CREATION,
PART 1
=======================================================================
(114-5)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 11, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
____________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
93-258 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
_______________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
JEFF DENHAM, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JANICE HAHN, California
TOM RICE, South Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania DINA TITUS, Nevada
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
ROB WOODALL, Georgia LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
TODD ROKITA, Indiana CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
JOHN KATKO, New York JARED HUFFMAN, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JULIA BROWNLEY, California
CRESENT HARDY, Nevada
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
MIMI WALTERS, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
WITNESSES
Hon. Anthony R. Foxx, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Transportation:
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Responses to questions for the record from the following
Representatives and Delegate:
Hon. Bill Shuster, of Pennsylvania....................... 68
Hon. Sam Graves, of Missouri............................. 70
Hon. Lee M. Zeldin, of New York.......................... 77
Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, of New Jersey.................... 78
Hon. Don Young, of Alaska................................ 79
Hon. Carlos Curbelo, of Florida.......................... 81
Hon. Lou Barletta, of Pennsylvania....................... 83
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, of Oregon......................... 85
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, of the District of Columbia..
Hon. Daniel Lipinski, of Illinois........................ 86
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. Sam Graves, of Missouri..................................... 56
Hon. Corrine Brown, of Florida................................... 57
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Hon. Anthony R. Foxx, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Transportation, response to request for information from Hon.
Richard L. Hanna, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York.................................................... 13
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
James Toscas, President and Chief Executive Officer, Portland
Cement Association, written statement.......................... 99
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION BILL: LAYING THE FOUNDATION FOR
U.S. ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB CREATION, PART 1
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Shuster
(Chairman of the committee) presiding.
Mr. Shuster. The committee will come to order. I want to
welcome everybody here to today's hearing, and welcome our
distinguished witness, the Honorable Anthony Foxx, Secretary of
Transportation. I was concerned he was going to get caught up
in the congestion of Washington, DC, but he made it on time. So
that is good news.
This is our first hearing of the year on surface
transportation reauthorization, one of our top priorities of
this committee, and I believe it is one of the top priorities
of this Congress, and it rightly should be.
We are actively working together with Ranking Member
DeFazio and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle for
this committee to write a bill that is good for America. I am
confident that, working with leaders in the House and the
Senate, and the Ways and Means Committee, and others, we can
figure out our funding issues.
By passing a good bill, we can ensure America's quality of
life, and facilitate economic growth for years to come. So I
look forward to hearing from Secretary Foxx about the
importance of this legislation, and now call on Ranking Member
DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
welcome. Thank you for being here today. Thanks for holding
this hearing.
Mr. Chairman, I feel a tremendous sense of urgency. I know
we are working toward a long-term authorization, and we have
substantial goals in common there. But the May 31st deadline
really is of concern to me. We have already had States--for
instance, Tennessee and Arkansas--say that they are going to
either postpone or cancel projects for this construction
season.
You know, other States are looking at the same problem.
Fifty-two percent of the total outlays in States are due to
Federal contributions, and in 11 States it is 70 percent or
more. So we are looking at grinding to a halt pretty quick. I
mean it is coming on construction season very, very soon.
We know the total need. The bridges--if we have the bridge
slide--there was a wonderful graphic that the Washington Post
put together. This is the bridge problem in America. You know,
I have thought for years maybe we could get the public's
attention if we had to post every bridge that is either
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete with a sign
that says, ``Caution: You are about to drive over a bridge that
is structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.'' But look
at the magnitude of this problem. That is good. Thanks, Helena.
So, that is what we need to address in the long-term bill--
147,000 bridges; transit has an $86 billion backlog. I was
hoping that Secretary didn't come on transit, because that is
breaking down, and sometimes even causing accidents that are
killing people. We need massive investment there. And then our
highway system also needs this sort of investment. We are
falling behind the rest of the world.
I often would refer to the U.S. in speeches that I give
about this as becoming third world. And our colleague, Mr.
Blumenauer called me after his speech and said, ``That is very
insulting.''
I said, ``Well, you know the depth and the breadth of the
problem.''
He said, ``Yes. No, it is insulting to third-world
countries, because they are spending a higher percentage of
their GDP on transportation, infrastructure investments, than
the United States of America.''
So, I have taken to calling us fourth world. We had led the
world, post-World War II. Now we are vaulting to the rear of
the pack by allowing our legacy system, the Eisenhower system,
the 20th-century system, to fall apart. And we have not put
forward the resources or the policies to begin to build a 21st-
century system, and that is why we are here today, to hear the
ideas of Secretary Foxx, and begin this process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. And if most folks took
notice to that, Pennsylvania is the worst of the worst up there
with bridges, more deficient bridges than anybody. And, to Mr.
DeFazio's point----
Mr. DeFazio. Well, it is----
Mr. Shuster. Well, the center is Republican. Philadelphia
and Pittsburgh are blue.
But to Mr. DeFazio's point, Pennsylvania did not solve its
funding problem until they started to post bridges. And when
they started to post bridges and close bridges, so people had
to go miles out of their way, that is when everybody started to
get serious. So----
Mr. DeFazio. Could we then discuss the mandatory idea of
posting every bridge----
Mr. Shuster. We can discuss everything you want, Mr.
DeFazio.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Shuster. Again, I ask unanimous consent that our
witness's full statement be included in the record.
[No response.]
Mr. Shuster. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Secretary, since you are the only show in town today,
don't be constrained by the 5-minute clock. If you feel you
need to talk more, we are happy to listen to you, because,
again, we are glad you are here today, excited to hear from
you.
And, with that, I would like to call on Mr. Meadows to
introduce the Secretary.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to
welcome my good friend to the committee. And I say that because
many of us have been here when you were confirmed. And
certainly, with great expectations, as being a proud North
Carolinian, we were honored with your appointment, and it came
with great expectation. And I will--in a very bipartisan way,
you have not disappointed.
I want to just say thank you so much for your work, for
your dedication, for your commitment to make sure that the
infrastructure that commerce needs and the people of this great
country need is funded. You have always been open, you have
been willing to work with us and explore every option.
So, I thank you for your commitment to work with this
committee, and with the chairman, specifically.
The little fun fact that I would like to talk about--I
always try to find a fun fact--it is good to know that, during
the State of the Union Address, that you were designated as the
designated survivor that, in case of a major event, you would
have had everything under your control.
So, welcome, Mr. Secretary. It is an honor to have you.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Meadows. And, with that, I
recognize the Secretary.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ANTHONY R. FOXX, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
Secretary Foxx. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member DeFazio,
and to my good friend from North Carolina, Representative
Meadows, I want to say thank you for having me here today, as
well as to the entire committee.
One thing about being a designated survivor is that I had
plenty of time to think about these issues during the State of
the Union. And, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it
is February. This is a month in which we typically celebrate
Groundhog Day. And I am told that groundhogs all across America
did something unusual this year; they did predict the weather,
predicting that the winter will last 6 weeks longer. But they
also predicted this year that Congress will pass a 6-year
surface transportation bill.
[Laughter.]
Secretary Foxx. So I am really excited about that.
Seriously, it does feel a bit like Groundhog Day. Over the
past year, I have been to 41 States, and more than 100
communities all across America. And every place I go, I see the
same thing over and over again, a community that has a to-do
list, and the list is longer this year than it was last year.
And those lists have been growing over many, many years.
Meanwhile, here in Washington, we are doing less and less
to help. So I want to crystalize the three basic problems I
believe a transportation bill can help us fix.
First, we need to take better care of the system we have.
The Brent Spence Bridge is not the only bridge in America that
needs to be replaced or repaired. One-quarter of our Nation's
bridges are in similar shape. But it is a good example. The
Brent Spence Bridge connects Kentucky and Ohio. It is more than
50 years old, and is carrying more than twice the traffic it
was designed for. Concrete is now falling from the bridge's
ramps onto cars parked below. There is no money to fix it, not
the Brent Spence Bridge, and not thousands of other bridges
like it across the country.
In fact, just last night we got news about a structurally
deficient bridge on the Maryland side of the Capital Beltway.
Concrete started falling and fell on the roadway below, badly
damaging a car passing through. Fortunately, this time, the
driver survived. But make no mistake; infrastructure and
disrepair has the potential to harm and kill. Our country is
too great to allow our infrastructure to fall apart. We must do
something.
Second, aside from tackling deferred maintenance, we need
to build new things again. Our Nation is growing by 70 million
people over the next 30 years. That growth is coming largely in
the south and western parts of our country. And we will choke
on that growth if we are not careful. That is why, when we hear
the State DOT secretary in fast-growing Tennessee say he is
canceling $400 million in projects due to funding uncertainty
here in Washington, we should all be concerned.
The same is true when we hear about Arkansas, which just
postponed 3 projects on top of the 15 projects that were
postponed in 2014. At a time when we should be building more,
we are building less. We need to do something.
Finally, we need to make sure that the transportation
system is smarter, more efficient, and more effective. That is
why DOT sent you the GROW AMERICA Act last year. The GROW
AMERICA Act includes--and I think many of you will agree with
me--tools to ensure that we are better stewards of taxpayer
dollars. Among other policy proposals, such as those that would
have enhanced safety, the GROW AMERICA Act would have cut
redtape and streamlined the permitting process. That way we can
get projects done faster, and remove barriers to private
investment, and do so in a way that does not compromise the
environment.
We need those dollars to help tackle our infrastructure
deficit. Creating capacity through more efficiency is another
way to help us get there. Every dollar saved due to reduced
delay creates more capacity in the system. And, again, there is
more we can do on that front.
All three of these components--fixing what we have,
building more, and being smarter and more efficient--work
together. It is a package deal. But here is the other point I
want to make today. In many ways, it is the most important
point. We could be 1,000 times more efficient. But the
fundamental way the Government has been investing will still
fall short of meeting our needs if we don't invest more.
As the State DOT director in Arkansas said, ``The Federal
Government is putting States in a real bind.'' That is because,
over the last 6 years, Congress has funded our transportation
system with 32 short-term measures, including the latest one,
which will expire this May, right at the beginning of
construction season.
My guess is that there are State DOTs right now today that
are scanning their project lists over the next few months, in
trying to figure out which projects they can do, and which ones
they will have to cut off. Instead of saying, ``Build, build,
build,'' Congress has been saying, ``Stop.'' Not just in
Tennessee, not just in Arkansas, but across America.
So, here is what we plan to do. In the coming weeks we will
introduce a new and improved GROW AMERICA Act, one that
provides 6 years of funding, and more of it, for the system we
need. The system needs us to stop budgeting to numbers. We need
to budget for results. The Highway Trust Fund balance is a
number. It is not an outcome. Studies show, from CBO to
industry groups, to our own study and research at DOT, that
merely replenishing the Highway Trust Fund will keep us at a
funding level that falls short of meeting even our maintenance
needs.
Meeting basic maintenance, even if we did that, does
nothing to meet the needs of a growing Nation, in terms of new
capacity. That is why the new GROW AMERICA Act will increase
surface transportation investment to the tune of $487 billion
over 6 years.
Now, $487 billion sounds like enough to choke a horse, as
we say in North Carolina. But against what we need, it is not
such a big number. It is doable. And keep in mind that others
are calling for far, far more than we are. We have also
hammered way down on the pay-for through pro-growth business
tax reform.
So, today I say, ``Let's play to win as a country again.
Let's get back in the transportation business in a significant
way.'' And, to do so, we need you to set the ceiling, not the
floor. I believe this committee, on a bipartisan basis, can do
that. I believe this committee can produce a bill that is truly
transformative, and that brings our country together.
So, I look forward to working with all of you, and I am
looking forward to your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We appreciate the
testimony.
And one of the things you said that really stuck out there
was budget for results. And I think that is what we need to do.
When you hear both sides of the aisle, both sides of the
Capitol, both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, everybody is talking
about a long-term bill, and across America. I am happy to say--
not for good reasons, necessarily, but happy to say, every time
I turn the TV on, or open up the newspaper, people are writing
stories about the need to invest in our infrastructure. So
budgeting for results, I think, is key to that.
There are many out there that say, ``Oh, we spend enough
and, you know, we are not getting the best bang for our buck,''
which, in some cases, that may be true. But I tend to side with
you on, you know, we need to build things, because we are
headed towards that 400 million population in the future.
So, my question to you is, I know that you have done a
lookout 30 years, and know what we need to do. So, in this bill
coming up, what are some of the things that you might recommend
that we do to speed up the process, and give States more
flexibility to be able to move these projects forward?
Because, as I travel the country time and time again, you
see these projects that take so long. And I was--a couple of
days ago, in a place where they had a project that was a $180
million project. That was 5 years ago. Now it is $230 million,
and it is because we go through this process that it takes so
long.
So, again, looking out in your crystal ball 30 years, and
the study you have done, what are some of the things that you
might recommend to us? And what are some of the things you
might recommend to give the States the flexibility so they can
move forward?
And I will say this again publicly. You know, one of the
things that impresses me most about you, and the experience you
have, most important I think, is being a big-city mayor, and so
you have dealt with every crappy Federal program that we have
sent out there, and you understand, firsthand, how we need to
streamline. So ``crappy'' is a technical term here in the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Shuster. So, Mr. Secretary, please.
Secretary Foxx. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have had many of those
sandwiches.
[Laughter.]
Secretary Foxx. Let me offer a couple of thoughts. First of
all, just to set the premise, we did this Beyond Traffic survey
to look at the system. What is the system doing for us now?
What does it need to do for us down the road?
Some of the facts are pretty compelling: We are going to
see a 60-percent increase in truck traffic over the next 30
years. We are going to have 70 million more people, all of whom
are going to be trying to get from one place to another. We are
going to find that many of our freight networks across the
country that are congested today are likely to get more
congested, unless there is some relief.
So, when you ask about speeding up projects, I think that
is a critically important issue, because it goes to public
confidence, and it also goes to saving resources and getting
more out of what we spend.
We think there are a couple of things we can do in that
vein. First, we should try to operationalize some of the
lessons we have learned from our concurrent review processes at
DOT. Over the last several years, following the Recovery Act,
there was an effort to put some national projects up on a
dashboard. We put interagency teams together to review the
permitting associated with those projects. It was, like, 50
projects. We did the permitting reviews all at the same table.
We were able to get those reviews done in a much shorter time.
The Tappan Zee Bridge in New York, for instance, had about
3 to 5 years of permitting baked into it from the beginning. We
were able to get it done in 18 months, using that method. The
good thing about it is that it doesn't jeopardize the equities
of any of those issues, it just front-ends the conversation
about permitting. So we think we can operationalize that. That
was suggested in the last GROW AMERICA Act. And it is another
issue I think we can work together on.
Another issue on permitting is the fact that, even within
DOT, we sometimes have duplicative permitting requirements. For
instance, if there is a bridge that has a transit project on
it, both environmental reviews have to be done under current
law. We think there should be a way to consolidate those
studies so that only one is necessary.
On the issue of State flexibility, we have had good success
with programs like the TIGER program. And I think that if we
had some dedicated programs such as a freight program that was
a similar competition among States, it would free the States up
to actually start planning and doing major projects of scale
that will help us relieve congestion in our freight areas. So
that is an example of where I think we can go.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. With that, I will recognize Mr.
DeFazio for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank
you.
I would observe that the additional funding you are
proposing would put us right at the point--if the gas tax had
been indexed over time for construction cost inflation, that is
about the amount of money we would collect this year. So it
isn't some major--I mean it is obviously a major investment,
but it is really kind of the path that we should have been on
all along.
Now, we aren't going to see mandatory repatriation,
probably, out of this Congress; the Republicans don't support
it. And we are not going to see it by May 31st. So do we have a
backup plan, or a short-term proposal on how we are going to
get through the next construction season? Anything that might
relate to existing user fees and some sort of adjustment to
those, or any other proposal?
Secretary Foxx. Well, I have to say that, in terms of the
pay-for we have suggested, we have put our cards on the table.
We very openly said to Congress that, if there are other ideas
that emerge, we are willing to hear those ideas and consider
them. We haven't taken any other pay-for off the table. And, to
my knowledge, we will not.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. I thought I had seen a statement from
someone at the White House fairly recently where they didn't
support an increase in the gas tax.
Secretary Foxx. Well, we support our proposal, but we----
Mr. DeFazio. No, I am just saying--just say Congress looked
at indexing the gas tax, or, you know, maybe some on the Senate
side, Republicans have proposed an increase in the gas tax. You
know, don't hear that much on this side, except what has been
introduced. Or I proposed a barrel tax. I mean are those things
all potentially possible with this administration?
Secretary Foxx. We are all ears.
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Secretary Foxx. But I think what we have got to focus on is
the fact that we do have time limitations here, and we do think
our proposal is practical.
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Secretary Foxx. There is bipartisan interest in going
towards----
Mr. DeFazio. Right, but--I understand. But there is a big
difference between, you know, the kind of repatriation we did
before, which lost money, which is what is generally supported
by the Republicans, and mandatory repatriation and actually
overt taxation of overseas assets, which the administration
supports, which, I have got to tell you, I am afraid is a
nonstarter with this Congress, you know. I would be happy to
support something like that along those lines, but the other
side of the aisle won't.
So, I am just saying--you know, you are Secretary of
Transportation. When is it going to be, if we don't have
funding in place by the end of May, when will you notify States
that you are going to slow down reimbursements?
Secretary Foxx. Well, I am hearing differently about the
business tax reform, but that is a political question----
Mr. DeFazio. Sure.
Secretary Foxx [continuing]. And we are happy to----
Mr. DeFazio. It isn't even this committee's jurisdiction.
Secretary Foxx. But we will probably do as we did in the
last crisis. After May we will be watching very carefully the
fund balance in the Highway Trust Fund. We expect that at
current spending levels we will likely have to notify States in
the June timeline of our cash management measures. I would
expect that our cash management measures would mimic what we
were proposing last time.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. And, as I stated at the beginning, some
States, in anticipation of that, are already postponing
projects for this construction year. Have you heard that same
thing?
Secretary Foxx. Yeah, talked about two of them already. I
do think they are all scanning their programs of work this year
to figure out what they are going to do.
Frankly, from their standpoint, May is actually late in the
game.
Mr. DeFazio. I know, right.
Secretary Foxx. So they are going to have to be making
decisions before May.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you.
One other issue we discussed earlier this year, you called
me about what you are doing with the cross-border program
regarding Mexican trucks. I expressed a number of concerns to
you, including the fact that there isn't much of a regulatory
agency on their side, enforcement, et cetera. And it is my
understand that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
has submitted comments to Mexico about their concerns. Would
you provide those comments, please, to the committee, so we can
understand what safety concerns and inadequacies are on the
other side of the border?
Secretary Foxx. We will respond to you in writing.
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Secretary Foxx. Yes, sir.
[The information appears in Secretary Foxx's response to
Congressman DeFazio's question for the record on p. 85.]
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. I recognize Mr. Mica for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr.
Secretary.
First, let me give you the good news and the pat on the
back. Some of the provisions that we put in MAP-21 allowing
public-private partnerships--you spoke to capacity, and we have
got to increase capacity. Believe it or not, our responsibility
is also the interstate highways, the Federal interstate
highways, and we need to do more there.
That legislation has led to us in central Florida to take
20 miles of most congested metropolitan area and expand it to
Mr.--goes through part of Mr. Webster, my district, Ms. Brown's
district. On Sunday we actually started that project, this past
Sunday. It would take 8 to 10 years more to get the $2.4
billion. We got about $1.4 billion in alternative and private-
sector funding, and that has going to build increased capacity,
a great example of what we can do taking our bucks--and that
right-of-way that sits there--and expand it. So, thank you.
Now, let me get to a couple of other things. Haven't been
here as long as Mr. Duncan, Mr. Young, and some others on the
other side. But the longer you are here, you know there is
never enough money, so you got to have those innovative things,
and I am glad you have supported that, and successful.
In the last bill we put provisions that allowed us to go to
using IT, intelligent transportation systems, and technology to
take the corridors that we have and move more traffic. I have
seen some examples--New York City, there are several around the
country--where they have got some incredibly innovative things.
You take the capacity you have, and you maximize it.
We have money in some of the accounts existing, don't we,
Mr. Secretary? To do that research and those projects.
Secretary Foxx. We do have ongoing research----
Mr. Mica. Yes, and I know there is money there, because I
have checked. The problem is--and when was it my staff was
checking? I think it was last May. My central Florida people
put in a request to do a project which could be a model for the
rest of the country to move traffic in some of our arterials
faster. That is still sitting there. I have called at least
three times. How long does it take to get that money out?
So, you have got to get money that is in some of these
accounts out. And I know, Mr. Webster, Ms. Brown, and others,
we would be most grateful if we could get that out for central
Florida. We could create a model of how people--everybody here
has huge traffic problems, but they don't have the money. And
simple solutions using technologies can get us there.
Second thing is I had--we have a commuter rail system--hate
to get local and parochial, but you know how it goes, and all
politics is local. We had people up this morning and today
coming to Washington because of some changes in a proposal for
a commuter rail. And I couldn't figure out what was wrong;
there had been agreement before. I found out there was, like,
$10 million difference in a $170 million project.
Two things were brought to light. One, we started agreeing
and setting the terms for this 6 or 7 years--no possibility of
flexibility. You talked about flexibility, budgeting for
results. But we have to have some flexibility on 7 years, a $10
million difference.
Then I found out, further, that the difference is actually
a requirement on Positive Train Control, which we mandated in
the interim from the time the project started. So, it put us in
a situation where we have problems or issues over a small
amount of money because of a Federal edict.
Somewhere we need the ability of the Secretary to step in
and say, ``Let's move forward with this.'' You have been
helpful, we appreciate that, but those are the kind of things
that drive us bananas.
Finally--I have got a few seconds here--you have actually
been the first Secretary to come forth with some policy in the
administration. We had nothing for a long time. You talked
about freight; we had freight mobility study. Come up with a
couple of innovative projects. We have the ability to do some
freight corridors, OK? And I think we could do them. But I
think sometimes it takes the administration to take the lead,
someone to take the lead.
What is it, I-81, I-95, some of those corridors--maybe--
what goes through yours? Let's use I-81. There is a great one.
That is a truck canyon and corridor. But there is lots of
right-of-way there. Let's convert that, let's put some money
into that, and show that we can move--you gave us the
statistics, which were astounding, of how much more freight we
are going to move by highway. But we don't have a single plan
or a model. And we could do that.
And think about doing it just through the chairman's
district, if nothing else. How is that?
Mr. Shuster. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Mica. I just gave him a project.
Mr. Shuster. I appreciate it.
Mr. Mica. OK.
Mr. Shuster. I want you to stop there----
Mr. Mica. Yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Shuster. Want you to stop there and not--I don't want
you to dilute what you are saying by saying anything else.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much, Mr. Mica. And, by the
way, for those of you who want to see it, it is like a railroad
at night. It is just trucks. It goes up to New York, in some of
your districts, and down South.
But, with that, I recognize Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think we have a
pretty realistic notion of where we stand on the highway bill,
I regret to say. So I would like to get into a couple of
nationally significant safety issues.
After 20 years, we finally got regulation of transit--
particularly underground transit--but only after nine people
were killed in a Metro accident here in 2009. And now we have
just had another accident, which took a life and sent 80 people
to the hospital.
Am I to believe that the FTA safety office, which will
oversee States--we gave this task to the States, with the FTA
safety office having oversight. Is that office fully staffed?
Secretary Foxx. We have been staffing up steadily since
MAP-21 gave us that responsibility----
Ms. Norton. When will that office be staffed? It needs to
push the States.
Secretary Foxx. Yes. Well, admittedly, ramping up a very
new function in safety takes a little time. In fact, we are
working through a rulemaking that will give us all of the
authorities, and provide the agencies with all of the notice of
our activities that will happen, going forward.
I can get you more detail on the rampup plan, but I know
that last year we brought in more than 20 people to help us
with these activities. But you are absolutely right; these
transit systems are critically important, and when accidents
happen, answers need to be developed very quickly, and
responses need to be deployed very quickly.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Secretary, do you have any idea how many of
the State offices are staffed, and up and running?
Secretary Foxx. I don't have information----
Ms. Norton. Would you get that information to the
committee?
Secretary Foxx. Of course.
Ms. Norton. I think we need to push the States when we see
these accidents continue to happen.
Let me ask you another--about another safety issue. Most of
our trucks are really small businesses, and there has been no
standard driver training. To their credit, they desire to have
a standard curriculum. This is--this issue is more than 20
years old. I believe I read yesterday that you had--you were
beginning a negotiated rulemaking, and would expect a final
rule, I suppose, at some point on behind-the-wheel training for
drivers, which is lacking for most of the drivers in the trucks
out here on the roads.
Have you an expected timeline for this driver training
curriculum?
Secretary Foxx. We hope to complete our work on this within
the calendar year, Congresswoman. This has also been a long and
tortured issue with a lot of false starts in the past. But we
think a negotiated rulemaking is the fastest way to get us
there with the parties at the table.
Ms. Norton. That is very good news, that this could happen
within the year.
Finally, Mr. Secretary, various States, frustrated that we
did not even authorize any experiments for alternatives to the
gas tax--some of them have begun to do their own alternatives--
I wonder if you would agree that, at the very least, in the
next bill the Federal Government ought to authorize studies of
what the States are doing, so we have at least some information
on alternatives to the user tax that we now know is no longer
useful to us.
Secretary Foxx. I think that would be a very productive
opportunity. There is a reason why America is getting more
stuck in traffic, and some of it has to do with the fact that--
the way we have done things in the past, both policy and
perhaps even funding-wise, need to be looked at with fresh
eyes.
I think the more information, the more study there is out
there, it can only help the system, at the end of the day.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. It is one thing for
us not to authorize the studies. I congratulate the States who
are doing their own experiments. And, at the very least, I
will, myself, endeavor to see that the next transportation bill
at least gets us some input from the studies--from the work
that is being done in the States. And I thank you, and I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. And, with that, I recognize Mr.
Hanna for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hanna. It is a pleasure to see you here today. Thank
you for being here.
Secretary Foxx. Good to see you.
Mr. Hanna. Mr. Secretary, this is a little bit off of where
everyone else is going, but there is an hours-of-service
regulation that you are familiar with. It is of deep concern to
a great many people, the 34-hour restart period. It was
surprising to see that the Department, in implementing the
study required in last week's--last year's appropriation bill
actually awarded that study to exactly the same company that
did it the first time that we take great exception to their
results and their opinion.
They also asked to have their--knowing that there are 2
million truck drivers in this country, they asked to have a
survey sample of 250. And what we know about this bill, from
the truckers--and it is not anecdotal; it is real--is that the
way the bill is written--the way the proposed rule is--and we
would hope it would change--is--requires them to go into
earlier hours of the morning--or, rather, later hours in the
morning, simply--and require more trucks and more drivers, et
cetera.
So, I just simply ask that a serious look is taken at
that--to that, and that we engage the 2 million truckers and
all the companies, because they are up in arms over this,
simply because they think it is counterproductive, in terms of
safety. And also, because it would require more trucks and more
drivers to go on the road to replace those ones. And it is very
prescriptive to tell a person, basically, when they are tired.
If you want to make a comment, I would be happy to hear
about it.
Secretary Foxx. Well, only to say two things. One, I will
take a look at the issues you are raising, and, second, to
reaffirm one critical fact, which is that we at USDOT, our
focus isn't on inhibiting people's rights to make a living, or
their freedoms. But it is to make sure that the transportation
system is safe. There is science about human tolerance,
Circadian rhythms, it gets into a lot of scientific stuff about
how much of a tolerance an individual has.
We have used that science in aviation, we have used it in
just about every mode of transportation. And hours-of-service
rule was our first foray into that----
Mr. Hanna. But knowing that the study was never completed,
and yet it was implemented August a year ago, doesn't prove
that they were interested in science. Actually, it proves that
they were on a mission to have this rule implemented. It seemed
very arbitrary and capricious.
We are asking only that the study is done thoroughly, done
intelligently, and done based on the things that you just spoke
about, knowing that the trucking industry is fundamentally
happy with the rules that they have, and the industry's record
of safety has increased year in and year out.
Secretary Foxx. Well, I would say that we don't make a
practice of issuing rules without completed studies. But I will
take your point, and the point being that our goal is to
maximize the amount of transparency and input from a variety of
stakeholders, which is what our public input processes really
should do, so that when we land on a rule, folks feel like they
have at least been heard, and they have actually been heard.
Mr. Hanna. I appreciate that. And I also think, though,
that it is--one could argue that to hire a company that
completed a study and ask it to go back on its own study is the
definition of a conflict of interest. And to have a 250 sample
set out of 2 million is not--I am not an expert or an actuarial
person, but it doesn't seem like nearly enough.
So, I would ask that you go back and look at the company
you hired. Because, basically, no one is going to believe what
they say. You know?
Secretary Foxx. So I will be happy to respond to you in
writing after we have taken a look at----
Mr. Hanna. You are very kind, and I appreciate it, sir.
Thank you. I yield back.
Secretary Foxx. No problem.
[The information follows:]
FMCSA selected the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
(VTTI) to manage the Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Restart
Study as they have a solid national reputation for conducting
vehicle-related safety and driver fatigue research. VTTI
pioneered the use of naturalistic driving studies and has
successfully carried out these kinds of projects for FMCA over
the past 10 years. Additionally, the National Academies of
Science selected VTTI to oversee large scale naturalistic
driving research projects as part of the congressionally
directed Strategic Highway Research Program 2 (SHRP2).
The overall study team is different from the MAP-21 study, for
which Dr. Hans Van Dongen at Washington State University served
as the technical lead. Regarding the Driver Restart Study, in
addition to the VTTI team, Dr. David Dinges, a nationally
recognized expert in sleep and fatigue research, and his team
at the University of Pennsylvania serve as the technical lead
for the study. Dr. Dinges has served as President of the Sleep
Research Society, on the Boards of Directors of the American
Academy of Sleep Medicine and the National Sleep Foundation, as
President of the World Federation of Sleep Research and Sleep
Medicine Societies and as Editor-in-Chief of SLEEP, the leading
scientific journal on sleep research and sleep medicine.
The Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Restart Study has
similarities to the MAP-21 study but is broader in scope as it
will involve more than 200 truck drivers over a 5-month data
collection period. The Driver Restart Study will also employ
more methods to measure driver fatigue and safety performance
such as on-board video monitoring systems. Data from more than
200 drivers will generate statistically significant data as it
is a large enough sample size to measure the characteristics
between the two groups of driver--those that use a one
nighttime rest period during their 34-hour restart breaks and
those that use two or more nighttime rest breaks. Standard
statistical techniques were used to generate an appropriate
sample size. This sample size, as well as the overall design of
the study, was reviewed by an independent review panel and the
U.S. Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector
General. As the project involved the participation of human
subjects, the study was also approved by Virginia Tech's
Institutional Review Board.
Mr. Shuster. Thank the gentleman. And, with that, Mr.
Larsen is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thanks
for coming out and helping us out today.
So, one of my criticisms about the administration's funding
package is sort of what is next. You may not be here in 2021;
some of us will be, and we will have to deal with 6 years from
now, and what we do on funding. Because the--repatriation was a
one-time deal. Do you have any--given Ms. Norton's question, is
there some proposal to look at what would be next, after--if
this bill passes, as is, in terms of funding?
Secretary Foxx. So two points, and I will try to be brief
with these.
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Secretary Foxx. We do not characterize our proposal as
repatriation. That term gets pushed around a lot, and I think
it is important to recognize that what we are doing is we are
putting a one-time tax on overseas----
Mr. Larsen. Here is my point.
Secretary Foxx. Yes.
Mr. Larsen. Define it--whatever the definition is, it is
one time. Is that right?
Secretary Foxx. Yes.
Mr. Larsen. So it would fund it for the 6 years, and then
the next 6 years we would be left to deciding how we fund the
next 6 years.
Secretary Foxx. Yes. I think what you are asking is the
reality that, no matter what pay-for you look at, there are
some weaknesses in all of them. In this pay-for, what you get
is basically a 50-percent increase--actually, a 100-percent
increase in what the gas tax is putting into the system today.
And you are able to substantially move the country forward over
a 6-year period.
Now, there is a question mark on the other end of that. But
look at where we are right now. We have bridges that are
crumbling, and we need to do something. We think it is
important to get something done right now. If we can work with
you to figure out the longer term, all the better.
Mr. Larsen. So that point--I am well aware of the crumbling
bridges, since Skagit River Bridge collapsed in my district in
2013. And so I have introduced the SAFE Bridges Act last
session of Congress, introduced this session of Congress. Is
there anything specific to bridge replacement and bridge
investment in the proposal?
Secretary Foxx. Yes, there is a critical infrastructure
repair program that is contained in GROW AMERICA. It is focused
on repairing infrastructure such as bridges that are in a state
of disrepair. It would put substantial amounts of money into
just focusing on maintaining our system in a better level.
Mr. Larsen. So the second things from--the second lesson
from the Skagit River Bridge collapse was--what we used to fund
it was emergency bridge repair, as well as the streamlined
permitting process. These two things are lessons learned from
the I-35W collapse.
Has the administration or the Department looked at that
permitting process for the emergency bridge repair as an
application, a broader application, to deal with this, the
broader permitting issues that we all have experienced when we
see these projects being built?
Secretary Foxx. Yes. And, in fact, I have to give credit to
MAP-21 for giving us the tools to do the emergency release
funds the way we did it in the Skagit situation, as well as the
permitting work. Again, that is wrapped into our version of
permit reform that is contained in GROW AMERICA.
Mr. Larsen. And applying it more broadly, not just to
emergency situations, but to----
Secretary Foxx. Yes, we have managed to accelerate
permitting in emergency situations, and then we put projects up
on our permitting dashboard. The basic practice is the same,
which is to have concurrent reviews that move things forward.
Mr. Larsen. Thanks. Finally--perhaps--well, probably with
the time left--there is a question about--one approach people
are talking about with regards to transportation funding is
devolution, getting the Federal Government out of the business.
And I like to say Lewis and Clark were the first intermodal
travelers in the country.
So, we have been, from a Federal perspective, traveling
intermodally for a long, long time. And the idea of devolution
seems to me a step back. Can you give us a why or why-not
description on devolution?
Secretary Foxx. Well, I think the bottom line on that
question is that if you take freight, for instance, we
manufacture something here in the U.S., and we want to get it
someplace else in the world. Whatever that is, it has got to go
across several States, likely, to get someplace. If you have--
the State it is made with pristine infrastructure, and then it
goes to the next State over, and that State has very poor
infrastructure, and the stuff can't get to the next State, you
have got problems.
The Federal Government has always taken an interest in
making sure there is at least a floor there so that we can have
interstate commerce behave as we want it to. That is just one
reason why I don't think devolution is a good idea.
Mr. Larsen. That is great.
Secretary Foxx. There are many others.
Mr. Larsen. Good. Thank you.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman. And, with that, Mr.
Crawford is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank
you for being here today. We are on the front end of a process
of trying to reauthorize a highway bill and Highway Trust Fund.
And I hope we are able to consider a multiyear approach. And
that is going to contain hundreds of billions of dollars in
spending. And my constituents, along with, I think, everybody
in the room, would just like to make sure that every dollar is
spent wisely.
And the administration has made transparency a priority,
and I am wondering if there is not more that could be done here
to bring transparency to where and how money is spent.
Specifically, can the agency provide a greater level of detail
at the project level?
Secretary Foxx. We have tried. When the Recovery Act was
done back in the late 2000s, we put up a dashboard that was
basically designed to do exactly what you are saying: ``Here is
Project X, here is where it stands in the permitting process,''
and to show the progress that was being made on that project,
as it was going through the process.
Can we do more of that? Absolutely. We could do it more if
we had the technological tools, and if we had the authorities
from you. I think the more we can work on that, the better.
Mr. Crawford. Well, certainly, I think the technology
exists to do that. I mean last week Ford introduced a
driverless car that drove hundreds of miles on a California
highway. So I don't think technology is an issue, I think it is
a willingness of the administration to make that a priority.
Let me ask you specifically. Where is the highway bill, in
terms of the administration's priority? How does it rank?
Secretary Foxx. We put a bill out last year. We are working
on a new and improved version of it. And it is a very high
priority. I don't think we would spend our time trying to come
up with a proposal if we didn't think it was important.
Mr. Crawford. And let me go back to the technology thing.
Is it feasible to think that we might be able to have a Web
site that would detail these categories of projects, so that
the general public could go on at any given time and see where
their dollars were being spent?
Secretary Foxx. I think we have a lot of challenges with
that. I want to explain what they are, because it is not a
willingness. It is actually--the USDOT is basically a funding
partner with States and local project sponsors, which is where
most of the work is actually being done. And so, our ability to
track the progress of any given project is directly tied to
that State's ability to provide us with current information.
We have a new NEPA tool called eNEPA. We are basically
trying to put that on a digital platform, so that we can use
less paper, and do this concurrent permitting better. But we
have a handful of States right now that are using it.
And so, when I say that it is, I am not trying to drag my
feet on this, I think your idea is a very good one, and I look
forward to trying to move it forward. But we have got to have
cooperation from the States and investment by the States in
helping us get this platform moving.
Mr. Crawford. Well, with respect--you know, my
constituents, and I suspect most constituents across the
country, feel the same way about this. We use broad terms like
``infrastructure investment,'' and folks really don't know
where that money is going, and there has not been a very good
account of where it is going, and can't see necessarily the
progress that they would like to see.
And, you know, I don't think a sign is sufficient. In fact,
I think a sign actually ends up costing more, when we could
utilize technology more efficiently to let people know what is
going on, where it is taking place, and the progress of a given
project in any given time.
So, you know, if we could see that incorporated going
forward, I think you would see a lot more willingness on the
part of the American people to support infrastructure
investment, having a better idea of knowing where their dollars
are going. I say ``their dollars,'' because I think we all know
that we are playing with our tax dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman. With that, Mrs.
Napolitano is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see
you, Secretary Foxx. Just a couple of comments.
And in your statement you indicate that you are paying more
attention to rural and tribal areas to include in covering.
What about territories?
Secretary Foxx. Through the GROW AMERICA Act, we invest in
territories, too. There have been some proposals recently that
have not. But our proposal acknowledges and supports the
programs in the territories, as well.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Well, some of my former
colleagues had brought it up, and they are not here in this
committee any more.
The other area is railroads usually provide about 3 percent
for grade separations. And I have recently asked Mr. Hamberger
how much. He guessed at 10. I reminded him it is mostly about
3, and maybe 2 percent of in-kind. And those are the things
that maybe we need to look at to be able to have more outside
dollars be able to be paired with local, State, county, and
Federal dollars.
I am very glad to see the GROW AMERICA Act included a
section to establish the national freight program. As you have
been aware, the--my area is the busiest rail freight corridor
in the Nation, with four freeways that are all just jammed to
the hilt. And I agree with Mr. Chairman, because we have trucks
day and night, especially on the 710, and then, of course,
going out on the 10 and the 60. And the--of course, we have
mostly Union Pacific, with the Alameda Corridor-East, which
delivers over 50 percent--probably even more--of product to the
Eastern States. Biggest challenge is mitigating the negative
impacts in the communities that it transects.
Now, do you think it is important the national freight
program prioritize projects that mitigate the negative impacts,
including health and safety impacts, that this freight has on
our local communities?
Secretary Foxx. I think that an important consideration in
looking at a national freight plan is the impacts on
communities. This gets to the point I was making earlier,
because of MAP-21, we are looking at how freight moves in this
country, and we are taking a broad look at that, probably even
broader than just the four corners of what MAP-21 requires,
because MAP-21 focuses mostly on highway lane miles, but we
know that there is rail dimensions, there are port dimensions
of freight.
But as we look to improve our freight system, just like we
looked to improve the entire transportation system, I think one
of the most important things is making sure that there is a
meaningful public input process that goes along with this, so
that the impacts of any given decision are understood, taken
into account, and addressed at whatever level the project is
happening on.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. I will continue working with
you on that, because that is a big issue in my area.
Second question, Secretary Foxx, is the Federal law
currently prohibits cities and local transportation agencies
from having the local hire preference on transportation
projects where just even $1 of Federal money is spent. That was
an old provision. It used to be when 80 percent was federally
funded and 20 percent local. Today it is reversed. Most of the
communities either have local money, county money, State money,
along with the Federal money.
And this issue is addressed on a temporary basis in the
appropriations law. But shouldn't we not include in the
reauthorization bill to allow cities to have a local-hire
preference, when the projects are a majority of local funds,
whether State, local, county, and--versus Federal?
Secretary Foxx. It is extremely powerful when a project is
happening in someone's backyard, and they have the ability to
apply for work in it. We think that having local hire would be
a strong statement of the job creation value of transportation
in our system.
I do want to thank this Congress for allowing FTA to
broaden its efforts in this regard through the omnibus bill
that passed at the end of the last Congress.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, many of our communities sometimes
have high unemployment rates, and this would be exceedingly
helpful. Instead of having to import workers from other areas,
from other counties, even from other States to come in and
work. So love to be able to hear any more information that you
may provide this committee.
Secretary Foxx. Great, thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Yield back.
Mr. Shuster. Thank the gentlelady. And, with that, Mr.
Barletta is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Secretary, last year the GAO issued a report that was highly
critical of the FMCSA program, and its effectiveness in
improving highway safety. Right around the same time that
report was issued, FMCSA issued a report by DOT's Volpe Center,
the very organization that developed the methodology behind
CSA, that served as a ringing endorsement of the CSA program.
One of the major problems pointed out by GAO was that CSA
uses data from a significant number of violations that have no
causal connection to crashes or predictive ability, a point
reinforced by the motor carrier and enforcement communities in
separate letters last year. If CSA is truly meant to address
safety problems before crashes occur, shouldn't scores,
especially if they are available to the public, be based upon
violations of regulations that have a causal connection to
crashes?
Secretary Foxx. I would like to submit a more thorough
response to you in writing, but let me just respond briefly,
here.
FMCSA has fully reviewed the GAO report. While considering
all the information, the agency has strong disagreements with
it. The primary reason is that the GAO's proposed methodology
is inherently flawed, according to FMCSA, and counter to the
agency's safety mission.
The GAO recommendation proposes that the agency wait until
20 observations of unsafe behavior and after a crash occurs,
which is contrary to the goals of the agency of intervening to
help carriers establish strong safety practices before crashes
occur. So I think there is a disagreement here. I would like to
flesh that out to you in a written response, if that is OK.
Mr. Barletta. And let me say, Mr. Secretary, I am glad that
you are a mayor. I think mayors are smart people, should be
appointed to the highest positions of any department.
[Laughter.]
Secretary Foxx. Sounds like a former mayor over there.
Mr. Barletta. In August 2013 more than 40 of my House
colleagues and I sent you a letter urging you to consider the
impact of bigger trucks on our local roads and bridges across
the country in your truck size and weight study. Despite our
requests, it is my understanding that the Department study will
be limited to what is basically the interstates and National
Highway System.
Are you looking at about 5 percent of public roads, and you
are, in effect, ignoring the other 95 percent of roads and
bridges where most people live and work.
The majority of automobile traffic are on these local
roads. I discussed this issue with city and county officials in
my district, and they are very clear in saying to me that their
roads and bridges are far different than those that you plan to
study. Their roads and bridges are older, and they are in worse
condition, and they are many times built to a lower standard:
many just a few inches of asphalt on a local road, as you would
know, as a mayor, versus an interstate that has maybe a foot of
concrete.
This is a letter from Mayor Joe Yannuzzi from the city of
Hazleton, and he says that the roads in his city, where the
heavier trucks operate, have sewer and water pipes beneath them
that can be damaged from the heavier truck vibrations because
of the only few inches of asphalt that are there. That is not
something that you are going to find on interstates.
He goes further to say that if a--bigger trucks are
allowed, he would have to double the public works budget to
cover the increased maintenance costs.
Don't you agree that we should have data on the impacts of
the bigger trucks on the local roads before making the decision
to allow them nationally? And how much time and money would you
need to extend your analysis to cover the impacts on the local
roads, where the local taxpayers will be footing the bill?
And, again, as a mayor, I am sure you can----
Secretary Foxx. Yes.
Mr. Barletta [continuing]. You could appreciate that.
Secretary Foxx. I totally get that. Yes, sir. Frankly, I am
going to need to go back and also respond to you on that
question of the local road impacts, and how carefully we are
looking at it.
What I will say, though, is that, from the very beginning
of launching this study, we have built in some substantial peer
review and public input work that is ongoing to stress-test the
study to ensure that we are looking at what we should be
looking at.
And so, as we go along, it is a report I know people are
anxiously awaiting, but we are trying to make sure we get it
right. The kinds of questions you are asking are ones that----
[On pp. 83-85, Secretary Foxx responds to Congressman
Barletta's questions for the record regarding the impact of
trucks on roads.]
Mr. Barletta. I think the study would be fundamentally
flawed if we are not considering the local roads and the impact
that it has on the local taxpayers. Thank you.
Mr. Graves of Missouri [presiding]. Mr. Garamendi, you have
5 minutes.
Mr. Garamendi. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Secretary, I want to thank you and congratulate you and urge
you to continue to really re-do the new version of GROW
AMERICA. Last year's version was--covered all of the issues we
need to cover, and I think covered it in a very solid way, from
highways to transit to airports and freight, and everything in
between. Stay with it. I look forward to your bill, and I would
hope that your version of the bill becomes the foundation for
our work in a 6-year plan, going forward.
The issue of funding will be debated for a long time, and
hopefully resolved. But I think the American people really need
to understand why we must do this. If they have a full
understanding of the necessity of it, then the funding issue
will follow much more easily. Thank you for going to some 40
States. You are welcome in my district any time to explain why
we need to do this, and I will work with you on that.
There are some very important policy issues in the GROW
AMERICA Act, and I would hope that they would be in the new
legislation that you propose, among them the Buy America
provisions. These are American taxpayer dollars. They ought to
be spent on American jobs and American equipment made in
America. And I thank you for having that in last year's bill,
and even in a higher percentage. Stay with it. You will
certainly have the support of many of us in Congress, because
we want to see those jobs in America.
In that area, there is now before you a request from Amtrak
to waive the Buy America provisions for some 28 train sets for
the Amtrak high-speed rail here, on the east coast. You will be
getting a letter--you got a letter from me, you will get a
letter from many others in this committee saying, ``Don't
provide that waiver.'' If that waiver goes forward, we will not
be building those manufacturing facilities here, in the United
States, for the future, as well as the Amtrak proposals.
I don't know if you want to comment on this. I would love
to hear you say, ``No waiver coming,'' but if you would like to
comment, please do.
Secretary Foxx. Well, thank you, first of all, Congressman,
for the incredible support for the administration's proposal.
It is, we think, a very targeted, focused, and effective
proposal, and we appreciate your support.
On the issue of the Amtrak trains, that is a measure that
is under review by the Department. And I think I would be
getting over my skis by commenting here, but I take your point,
and we will, obviously, take that back into the Department.
Mr. Garamendi. Well, I fully expected you to duck, bob, and
weave on that one, but----
Secretary Foxx. Thank you, I try to please----
Mr. Garamendi. Know where we are coming from. And, since
you wrote a very high standard into last year's GROW AMERICA
bill--and, I hope, in the coming bill--you will carry out your
own policies in this regard.
With regard to another issue, Mr. Barletta raised this
issue of the heavy trucks and the super-trailers, super-sized.
There is a great deal of concern in California about this. We
don't now have these in California. Many of the local
officials--State, county, mayors, and the rest--are very
concerned, just as you heard from the previous discussion. I
share those concerns, and I would hope that the study that is
underway would take into account local highways. And also, the
comments of local police, sheriffs, highway patrols, which did
not appear to be in the study, thus far.
If you would care to comment on expanding the study to
include these concerns, I would appreciate it.
Secretary Foxx. We are still working through desk scan
revisions, release of technical reports still have to be done.
But there is another round of public input that is built into
our process. So there is still time for us to get the types of
comments that you are talking about.
Now, we will make sure that you are aware of when that time
will come in the process.
Mr. Garamendi. I thank you for that. I would note that the
local agencies--police, fire, as well as mayors and counties--
are very, very concerned about their input into the current
study being insufficient or, actually, ignored. And we would
hope that this would not be in the final study.
I thank you once again for your leadership on the overall
transportation issue. GROW AMERICA was a very good bill. I am
sure that the next version, by extending to 6 years, is even
better. Please carry forward the policies. I will yield back my
time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Webster.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary----
Secretary Foxx. Good to see you.
Mr. Webster. First of all, I would like to personally thank
you for helping out with me and--personally, and the State of
Florida, in getting a TIFIA loan for the Interstate 4 ultimate
project. That was crucial in getting that project going and on
time, and I really appreciate your personal involvement on
that. It was an awesome effort. And it is the largest loan, as
you note, that--by the Department on a public-private
partnership, which is going to help us immensely. We have over
55 million people that come to our central Florida area and
visit our world-class attractions in the district I represent,
and along with the citizens there, we have a lot of traffic.
And that loan that was done in the TIFIA project, the
ultimate project for Interstate 4, part of that, was--that
project is a revenue-generating project, because it uses
variable toll express lanes to help fund that project, and to
help pay back that loan. And my thought is does that--does the
fact that there is revenue, like new revenue that is produced
by a project, does that enhance the application for a TIFIA
loan, do you----
Secretary Foxx. We are somewhat agnostic on whether it is a
new revenue source or an old revenue source. But, clearly,
because we are talking about financing, as opposed to funding,
what we do need to know is how a given entity proposes to pay
back the loans.
We have seen in different places--by the way, last year was
a record year for TIFIA. We did 13 projects and $7.5 billion.
But what we have seen is that some communities use availability
payments, existing tax revenues, to pay back a TIFIA loan. In
the case of I-4, there was a new facility of tolling that was
used to pay those revenues. But we actually have seen all sorts
of different ways to pay for projects, and we continue to keep
an open eye and ear towards new ways of doing it.
Mr. Webster. Well, I--and I knew last year was a big year
for TIFIA loans. Is there anything that you have learned over
those multiple applications that would help streamline the
process? And would any of that require legislation?
Secretary Foxx. One of the things that we have done
differently with TIFIA since I have been in place is we have
started to front-end our process. So it used to be that you
send an application in, and the real hard brass-knuckle work on
crunching numbers and trying to figure out an acceptable
framework happened later in the process. We are now trying to
do that hard work at the beginning.
So, when a letter of interest comes in to the Department,
we immediately start asking those hard questions, so that when
we invite an applicant to apply to the program later, we have
done that, and folks can have a certain level of confidence
that the TIFIA loan is going to move through.
So, we have tried to streamline it. I think it is working.
And I will maybe think about ways that maybe you all can help
us do even more, in terms of moving faster.
Mr. Webster. If I could ask just one more question about
transportation disadvantage. There are over 80 programs that
have been highlighted. Only--less than 10 are in the Department
of Transportation. There is a coordinating council. Do you
think--and that was established because there has been some
criticism that the same person is covered by three or four of
those, not in the Department of Transportation, but other
agencies through Labor and Education and Health, and all of
that have--and the VA, all have--is there any way that that
coordinating council could be beefed up? Or do you think it is
working? Or is there something else we need to do?
Secretary Foxx. Let me go back and take a look and maybe
think about that. It hadn't--I hadn't focused on it, but----
Mr. Webster. Every time we get the GAO reports, it is
always mentioned. It is a little thing----
Secretary Foxx. Yes.
Mr. Webster [continuing]. In the overall, that we can say
$500 billion if we consolidate programs. But it is there, it is
something I knew about when I was in the State legislature,
tried to fix it then. I would love to work with you on it.
Secretary Foxx. That is great. Well, we will be back in
touch with you.
Mr. Webster. Great.
Secretary Foxx. Yes, good.
Mr. Webster. Yield back.
Mr. Shuster [presiding]. I thank the gentleman. With that,
I recognize Ms. Hahn for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. Hahn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Foxx, it is
great to have you here with us. This is going to be a big year
for our committee, as we work to create this surface
transportation bill.
My focus has been, since day one, is our Nation's ports. I
cofounded our PORTS Caucus. We now have about 95 Members who
are dedicated to really advocating for our Nation's ports.
Chairman Shuster led a delegation many of us from this
committee just went a couple weeks ago to see the Panama Canal
expansion project, and spent a lot of time talking amongst
ourselves on what impact that expansion project would have on
the United States ports, and our ability to remain
competitively--globally competitive. So, I appreciate your
focus.
My goal is--in this surface transportation bill, is to
create a dedicated freight program. In my mind, this program
should have a dedicated freight funding source, which deposits
into a trust fund very similar to the Highway Trust Fund. I
think freight projects are going to lose out if they always
have to compete with all the other projects in this country
with just the Highway Trust Fund.
One of the recommendations of the Panel on 21st-Century
Freight Transportation was that it should be a dedicated
funding source. So, in response to that, I am going to
reintroduce tomorrow the National Freight Network Trust Fund
Act of 2015, with a bipartisan group of cosponsors, that will
create a trust fund that should provide about $2 billion a
year.
My idea is to suggest that we divert 5 percent of our
import fees in this country. We collect about $40 billion a
year in our import fees, and just 5 percent of that, I think,
would mean the difference to us, really, funding freight
transportation projects in this country. And I think those who
pay these import fees would appreciate us taking that money and
putting it back into the Freight Network Trust Fund.
So, my question to you is could you speak to that idea of
having a dedicated funding source for freight projects in this
country? Without that, do you think that the President's
program, you know, could fail to provide long-term solutions to
our freight bottlenecks in this country?
And maybe comment a little bit about the last mile into our
ports. You know, everybody is worried about how the Panama
Canal expansion project will impact our ports. The west coast
ports are going to be impacted differently than the east coast
ports. And yet, the greatest, I think, threat to diversion of
cargo is our landside congestion in this country. And, like you
said, we have got to get it moved from one point A to point B.
And, if you could, just speak to what do you think of this
idea of dedicating the money just for freight projects? And how
do we make sure the last mile into our ports across this
country are targeted for this kind of funding?
Secretary Foxx. We agree that there needs to be a dedicated
freight program in this country. In the GROW AMERICA Act what
we do is we put about $18 billion in place over 6 years--I
think, actually, it is $28 billion over 6 years, that are
focused on freight. And we are agnostic in that program on the
mode.
So, it can be ports, it can be rail, it can be highways,
whatever is going to help us get stuff from one place to
another faster, more efficient, and safe. So, we do it through
the same mechanism that we pay for the overall bill. That is
our approach. But, as we have said, if there are other ideas
that emerge, we will hear them out.
Your question on the last and first mile is a critical
question, because, in many places, the same areas that are
highly dense, highly congested, are places where that first and
last mile is a problem. So you need to have a lot of different
strategies to deal with it.
One strategy is, number one, making sure that the assets we
have, where those first and last miles occur, doesn't fall
apart on us.
The second strategy is trying to expand capacity where we
can. In some cases, like in the Los Angeles area, you may be
constrained, in terms of expanding lane miles. So there, the
strategy may be working to get cars off the road so you create
more capacity on the existing freeway. That means things like
commuter rail transit, and other strategies.
Then the last thing is continuing to work to make sure the
system is smarter. We have problems in this country with
double-stacking containers off of these big ships, because some
of our bridges aren't high enough to run rail under, or run
trucks under. And so, we have got to figure out a way to
address those issues on the surface system, as you said, to
enhance our ability to----
Ms. Hahn. Right, because these bigger ships that we know
will now get through the Panama Canal, I mean, we are almost--
are you tapping me?
Mr. Shuster. Yes, ma'am.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Shuster. I know my good friend from California cares
about the ports, but we are over time. So I appreciate the
Secretary answering.
Ms. Hahn. OK, OK, I yield back.
Mr. Shuster. I let him answer your question fully.
Secretary Foxx. I did.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. With that,
I yield to Mr. Denham for 5 minutes.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to yield
as much time as the Member from Alaska needs.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Denham, I appreciate it. Mr.
Chairman, thank you for this hearing.
We are all like a bunch of dogs circling around a skunk
right now. That skunk is how we are going to fund this program,
Mr. Foxx. This is our biggest challenge. Unfortunately, the--as
you know, the administration, when Mr. Oberstar was chairman,
did not support any increase in funding. And we have not done
our job as a committee, nor as this Congress. And I think it is
important for us to recognize, as the committee, and as the
leadership of this House, and leadership of the White House,
that we have to fund this program. You can't take it from the
General Fund, $18 trillion in debt. You are not going to get it
from overseas.
And we sit here and talk about writing a highway bill; no
one has addressed the issue of funding. And that is what we
have to do, Mr. Chairman. If we do not do that, all these
hearings are good, we will write something, but we won't
accomplish that task of really building an infrastructure
system in this country.
And so, I am asking this committee and the chairman, I am
asking the White House to sit down and say, ``Do we want to
have a system to provide the transportation capability to this
Nation, or do we want to talk about it?'' And so, that is my
little opening statement.
Mr. Foxx, you don't have to comment. You are going to get
three questions from me in writing. I hope you will answer
that. But I would like you to take that message back to the
White House, that let's do the leadership role of funding a
transportation system, and let's let the public pay for it.
They will buy that. The truckers buy it, the public has to be
sold on it. Otherwise, we don't--we will not have and will not
be competitive, globally.
So, Mr. Chairman--I thank you, Mr. Denham, for yielding.
And I just want everybody to consider that. Kill the skunk.
Let's fund this program. Because, if we don't, we are all in
deep doo doo. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. Mr. Denham is going to reclaim his time after
that. I don't know how you do better than that.
Mr. Denham. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Secretary, first of
all, let me thank you for not only our ongoing relationship,
but our ongoing communication. You have had a great open-door
policy. We have discussed a number of issues that are very
important, and, certainly, some very timely issues.
And I wanted to just follow up on Ms. Hahn's questions on
the ports. You and I have discussed the ports, you know, her,
down in Long Beach, me in the northern part of the State with
Oakland--this was a California problem, now it is a national
problem. It was an issue with a number of imports that were
getting stuck; now we have a number of exports, many of which
are perishable. I just want to encourage you to continue to
have the administration--not only the ongoing involvement, but
the aggressive involvement that will help us to end this. This
is now a national issue that could cost us $2.5 billion to our
economy every single day.
So, again, you don't have to answer today, but I just
wanted to say thank you for the communication and involvement
in the issue.
I did want to just touch on an issue with rail safety. You
and I have had a number of discussions about that, as well;
two, in particular. Again, thank you for your efforts with our
previous, but also our next hearing on rail safety.
The tank car rule, while the administration is over a month
behind on that, it is my understanding that that rule is now at
OMB. I would ask you to comment on what you think that timeline
will be before we see that, as a committee.
And then, secondly, I noticed in the budget there is $3
billion available over the next 6 years for PTC, Positive Train
Control. Is that 6 years a suggestion that it would be a 6-year
extension to the PTC mandate?
Secretary Foxx. OK. First of all, thank you, Mr.--
Congressman Denham, for your questions and opportunity to
respond on these issues.
The tank car and the high-hazard flammable liquid train
rule is one that has taken an awful lot of focus and time and
resources of the Department. We were pleased to get that rule
over to OMB last week. That initiates an interagency process,
and I, unfortunately, can't tell you, sitting here today, when
that rule will come out. But what I can tell you is that it is
the highest level of urgency for me to get that rule moved
forward for our Department and, I believe, our administration,
to move it as quickly as we possibly can.
We know that certainty is important in this arena, for
communities as well as for industry, and our goal is to get it
out very, very quickly.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Secretary Foxx. On the--I am sorry, the second issue?
Mr. Denham. On PTC, Positive Train Control. Right now, the
$3 billion available over 6 years to eight commuter railroads,
and the implementation. The question is, does that suggest that
we should expect a 6-year--a recommendation of a 6-year
extension?
Secretary Foxx. No. I think what we have recommended in the
past on this is continuing to hold the industry's feet to the
fire, in terms of getting PTC done as quickly as possible.
Our approach would be, essentially, to give us the tools
within FRA to work individually with each of the railroad
companies to develop plans that get them there as quickly as
possible, as opposed to having a blanket extension which could
delay all of the implementation to a point in the future. So
that is our approach, and we think it is a prudent and
practical one.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Denham. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Shuster. Thank the gentleman. Thank the gentleman. And,
with that, I recognize Ms. Johnson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. You have answered most of
my questions. I first wanted to associate myself with the
remarks of one of our former chairmen, Mr. Young. And I
wondered if he had stolen some of my notes when he spoke.
There is a question that I have not heard the answer to
yet, and that is the issue of the agency's formula grant
program, and whether or not you intend to use the current
census data to make these determinations. And I am hoping that,
in the recent iteration of GROW AMERICA, that this issue will
be given some attention.
And I say that because I am from one of the fastest growing
areas in the country, which is in the north Texas area of
Texas. And we have learned to build up, rather than just out,
so we have large numbers living in highrises that have to get
to work. And we are really concerned about the fair
distribution, based upon current census data. Can you address
that a little bit for me?
Secretary Foxx. It is a very good question. I don't know
that, in GROW AMERICA, we necessarily changed the formula,
itself. What we do, by virtue of creating more funding, is we
create more opportunities for communities to get the resources
they need to do innovative, transformative projects.
Certainly in your district and in Dallas, they have done
some remarkable things, whether it is with transit or highways,
or what have you. That is why the GROW AMERICA Act, for
example, would expand the TIGER program to an annual $1.2
billion program, to provide that flexibility. That is why we,
as I said before, create a large freight program to help us
address needs that are happening across the country. That is
why we expand TIFIA and some of the other tools that we have in
place, because we, frankly, need to create more flexibility.
There is another area that we also do in this bill, which
is--and this comes directly from my experience, as a mayor,
which is that, you know, when you are a mayor, and you see
these dollars coming into a State, you watch them bounce around
like a ball in a pinball machine. You watch the ball go around,
and then you see what lands in your community, and it is
usually a very small fraction of what came in, in the first
place.
So, one of the things we do is we create a program called
FAST that focuses on local transportation projects, and rewards
communities that look regionally at transportation projects
that are going to impact their ability to grow jobs and create
better economies. So we create multiple ways for communities to
get the flexibility you are talking about. But I will go back
to my team and ask the question again as to whether we change
the formula itself.
Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you very much, and thank you for
coming to my most gorgeous area in the country when you made
your tour last year.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a great committee,
with great leadership, and I hope that we will come to some
real good recommendations very soon to address the issue. Thank
you very much.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. Thank the gentlelady. And, with that, Mr.
Ribble is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ribble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it is
good to have you here. You are highly regarded in this
committee, and it is an honor to have you here with us today.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Ribble. I think I will start with some words of
encouragement first, and then I will get into maybe a little
more difficult question in the second.
I, along with Congressmen Pascrell, Lipinski, and Reed,
have been circulating a letter among our House colleagues,
asking them to sign on, telling the leadership of the House of
Representatives that we would like to see a long-term, fully
funded authorization bill. I would like you to know that we
have 285 Members of the Congress on that letter already. That
is 66 percent of the House. And so there is broad, bipartisan
support here to have that long-term bill and authorization
done. I think that is good news.
Along with that, though, you play a pretty significant
role. We need to bring the American people along with this, as
we work toward this end. And your ability to get out in front
of the American people and the administration to talk about
this committee's work, and the fact that we are committed to
it, and that Congress is committed to it, could be really
helpful to us. Would you be willing to do a little bit more of
that, and really get out there?
Secretary Foxx. Absolutely, sir. This is an area that I
have tried to be very out front on. I did a bus tour last year
that went through nine States, many communities, rural and
urban. We are trying to do everything we can. I am even on
Twitter later today with the chairman. I am looking forward to
that, as well. But we are going to use every opportunity to let
the American public know that this is a problem.
In fact, when we go to the American public, they are
telling me what their problems are, because they are stuck in
traffic, they know it. I completely agree with you, and we will
do everything we can.
Mr. Ribble. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you for your efforts, too,
Congressman.
Mr. Ribble. You are welcome. Two quick questions for you.
One is, in your comments earlier you said that part of the GROW
AMERICA Act--and I realize that what we do here is not going to
look exactly like that, but we will find some bipartisan way to
move forward. But in your comments you said that you wanted to
cut redtape, you wanted to actually reduce redtape. Why do we
have to wait until a bill is passed to do that? Don't you have
the authority to cut redtape right now?
Secretary Foxx. We do have some authority to cut redtape,
and we actually have cut a significant----
Mr. Ribble. I would encourage you to cut a bunch more.
Secretary Foxx. Yes. Well, look, let me give you an
example. In the highway area, historically our environmental
impact studies have taken 79 months, on average. We have cut
that down now to 45 months. We continue to whittle away at
this, administratively.
What we are asking for in the GROW AMERICA Act just gives
us even more fire power to try to attack the delays that happen
in transportation in a way that we think is doable and doesn't
compromise the environment.
Mr. Ribble. And I talk to a lot of contractors. And before
I came to Congress, I was in commercial construction, myself.
And I can tell you I spent an awful lot of time holding one of
these, and not enough time holding a shovel.
Secretary Foxx. Yes.
Mr. Ribble. And we have got to get at that----
Secretary Foxx. Yes.
Mr. Ribble [continuing]. That, ultimately. And so, thank
you for that.
MAP-21 required the administration to do a truck weight
study. Mr. Barletta mentioned it earlier. I happened to be, in
fair disclosure, on the other side of the argument. But when
will we be able to see that study? It was supposed to be done
in October, and I am curious when we are going to get a copy of
that. Because it is difficult for us to move forward with our
authorization, without having the data from that study. What--
could you talk to me a little bit about when we will see it?
Secretary Foxx. Yes. It is going to be hard for me to
pinpoint a timeframe, but I can tell you that we have several
more steps, including peer review and another public input
round to do. My hope is that we are able to get it done early
this summer, but I don't have a more specific timeline.
Mr. Ribble. It is important, just for you to know that it
is going to be difficult for us to move forward, because there
will be many of us that are going to want to have that data
before we actually do the authorization. And so, to the degree
that you can, you know, kind of hit on the throttle on that, it
would be very, very helpful to us.
Secretary Foxx. We will do our best, yes.
Mr. Ribble. Thank you very much. With that, I yield back,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Ribble. And, with that, Ms.
Esty is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary
Foxx. We enjoyed having you in the great State of Connecticut,
and appreciate any time you want to do a bus, train--you may
not want to do the train, since I know there have been troubles
with that recently. So, again, thank you.
I would like to associate myself with Mr. Ribble's
comments. Again, you are a very effective and powerful
spokesperson to build the support with the American people for
things that have to get done, to deal with Mr. Young's question
about the skunk. So, please, get out there as much as you can.
And, hopefully, talk show hosts will ask you about
transportation and not about being in an undisclosed location.
First, I wanted to--coming from Connecticut, where we are
really seeing the ravages of underinvestment in that first
issue about maintaining what we have, we are seeing the cost of
that. And I will tell you we heard recently from our department
of transportation about the tremendous cost, and the time
delays for them for these short-term bills. So, whatever we can
do on this committee to work with you and get a really, true,
serious 5- or 6-year bill is tremendously important. It is
costing all of our districts, all of our States, lots of money
and lots of time, and a huge aggravation. So that is number
one.
Having spoken with the department of transportation
recently, they are finding complexity about Federal
requirements and mandates that are applying to local projects,
even though they are not part of the Federal highway
transportation system. Is this something we can work with you
on, on getting some exemptions on things that--they are finding
much lower level projects, I think, because we are a small
State, everything is really near to a highway in almost all
parts of our State. And we are finding at least they are being
told that they are having to comply with things.
Secretary Foxx. Happy to work with you on that.
Ms. Esty. OK. That would be great. So, for the Federal
highway project requirements, are really--are adding to that
time, that redtape.
Now, we are well aware--we haven't talked, really, today
about technology very much, about that last--the third piece on
smart and effective. We are looking at this in the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, as well as here. And there is a
great deal of promise. On the other hand, there is a lot of
concern. There is a lot of concern about privacy and, frankly,
on safety, hijacking of cars, reprogramming of things.
So, how can we work with you better? What is it that you
are going to need from Congress, so we could advance towards
this, use our existing transportation systems better and more
effectively with more vehicles, or perhaps smarter vehicles
that are allowing someone like my mother, who is no longer
driving, to get back in a car and go where she needs to go?
Secretary Foxx. Yes. Well, first of all, you are absolutely
right. The technology opportunities that are right in front of
us are really exciting. But we also need to be clear-eyed about
what some of the challenges are with them. I think there are
several things that we probably should look at. For instance,
is there a penalty if someone interferes with an automated
vehicle in some way? And have we taken a comprehensive look at
our criminal codes, for instance? Those kinds of ideas.
I think as this evolves, and evolves so quickly, the more
we can think ahead and develop mechanisms both to safely
integrate technology into our transportation system, first, and
then to think about some of the ramifications of that
technology, and ensure that we have the appropriate framework
for those, those are the two biggest things that we can do. We
will be happy to provide technical assistance to you, as you
consider these issues, going forward.
Ms. Esty. And if you would like to take a minute and just
elaborate on the importance of long-term fix, because, really,
truly, this is the big issue in my district.
Secretary Foxx. On the long-term----
Ms. Esty. Long-term bill, a permanent bill----
Secretary Foxx. Yes, I appreciate----
Ms. Esty [continuing]. And what you see, from your level,
about the cost, and what we need to be doing, together.
Secretary Foxx. I want to maybe issue a bit of a warning,
that, again, as I said, the Highway Trust Fund is a number.
Just getting that number so that we don't go under, doesn't
speak to what this country actually needs. The warning is that,
as we work and pull our hair out, and try to figure out how we
are going to pay for something better than what we have, if we
set that bar too low, what the American people are going to
find is that they have paid more for the same thing.
I think that what we have got to do is to step beyond where
we are, and realize that folks had to step up for the
interstate system to get built in the 1950s and 1960s. So we
have got to go big. Go big.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. Now I will recognize Mr. Meadows
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for your comments today, and your testimony.
I want to throw out a few things. One is, as Mr. Ribble was
talking about with regards to truck weights and that
determination, my understanding is there has also been some
studies and some review, in terms of truck lengths, not as much
with weights. Can we expect maybe a quicker response on the
truck length question, as it--you know, my understanding is it
reduces miles traveled, from a safety standpoint, and maybe not
as egregious as some of the weight concerns that are out there.
Can we look to perhaps an answer on that quicker than the
truck weight issue?
Secretary Foxx. Let me check in on that, and respond back
to you, Congressman. My goal is to get this all out as quickly
as we possibly can. The industry and the stakeholders were
promised a lot of input in the course of pushing this report
out. And so, we want to make sure we honor that.
Mr. Meadows. Sure.
Secretary Foxx. But we will move as quickly as possible. I
want to get back to you specifically on your question.
Mr. Meadows. All right. The other night, on a town hall, it
was interesting, because infrastructure funding actually came
up in my conservative district. And it is interesting that even
a number of conservatives want to make sure that we have a
long-term funding strategy. As Mr. Ribble said, you know, there
is--over 60 percent of our colleagues now say, ``We want
something long term.'' Everybody knows the path we are on now
is not sustainable.
In fact, many of them on the call actually said that they
agreed with the President, that repatriation is something that
they can agree with. And whenever you can find Democrats,
unaffiliateds, and Republicans agreeing on anything, I want to
really start to focus on that.
As I sell this back home, one of the troubling aspects--and
I notice, in the breakdown of, you know, the GROW AMERICA Act,
is a larger increase on transit than on highways. That is very
difficult for me to sell back in North Carolina, because,
predominantly, most of the transit dollars have gone to six
cities, none of which are in North Carolina. And so, the
American people don't see the benefit, when we are increasing
that at 75 percent versus 29 percent on surface roads.
Is that mix something that we can work with to, hopefully,
gain a bipartisan consensus across the country? Or is that
something that is set in stone?
Secretary Foxx. Let me ask a clarifying question. Is
Charlotte still in North Carolina?
Mr. Meadows. Yes, but it doesn't get--the majority of it. I
know, Mr. Mayor. And if Charlotte was in there, I could
understand it.
Secretary Foxx. I am joking with you. Look, here is the
perspective I would offer on the transit piece. The bill we are
discussing, and that we will push out to you shortly, is a $478
billion bill. Now, there is a 29-percent increase in the
highway allocation. But the highway allocation is increased
over a much larger baseline. So, out of a $478 billion bill,
there is $317 billion of it is that is dedicated to highways.
The increase in transit, percentage-wise, is greater. But
it amounts to----
Mr. Meadows. $115 billion----
Secretary Foxx. Yes, $115 billion. The first point is that
we are making substantially larger investments in our highway
system under the bill than under transit.
The second point gets back to a lot of the conversation we
have had about the bottlenecking in our freight systems. In our
Beyond Traffic survey over the next 30 years, one of the
findings was that a lot of that congestion is happening around
highly populated urban areas that connect into ports and so
forth. One of the ways to relieve that congestion is to get the
individual auto user off the road. You do that partly by having
good transit facilities. So, from a macro standpoint, I think
the transit investments actually help our highway system move
more people and more freight traffic.
I realize that that may not be the answer that you were
looking for, but that is--from the system standpoint, I think
those are rationales for the way we approach it.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much. And, with that, I
recognize Ms. Frankel for 5 minutes.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I welcome Mr. Foxx.
And, as you can tell, we have a committee with outstanding
leadership, and a real bipartisan spirit to move our economy,
which is what modernizing transportation does. And I wanted to
pick up on your discussion of a program--I think you called it
FAST.
Like you, I was a--I am a former mayor of a city called
West Palm Beach. It is not Palm Beach; people get confused. I
love Palm Beach, I represent Palm Beach, too. But West Palm
Beach is a real urban city with beautiful weather. But it is
very diverse. We have all kinds of issues. I can tell you this,
that the number-one complaint I would get, as the mayor, where
my phone would not stop ringing, was when the roads were
obstructed. It was--people, whether they are going to work,
getting their kid to school, or to baseball practice, going to
the market, that is what aggravates people, when they could not
move from one place to another.
So, I like your idea of giving more flexibility, or getting
more dollars back to the local government. Florida is a very
big State, so I can tell you that up--the upstate, Tallahassee,
does not know what is going on in the down part of the State,
many times. And I am going to give you an example.
When I became mayor, we--there was road construction going
on. So there was an attempt to fix the roads. However, they
kept moving the crews around from one city, one project, to
another. And so, a project that should have maybe taken 6
months was in its third year. And when I complained to the
State legislator, he said to me, ``Just be grateful you are
getting the money.'' And I could not actually get the road
completed until I actually put a sign up that said, ``Call the
Governor, stop calling me.'' Really.
And so--but I do have a question attached to this comment.
How--what in your proposal--how do you encourage the big
picture--or, that is, regions working together--as well as
getting the money to the local community?
Secretary Foxx. It is an incredibly important question.
First of all, I want to thank you for the support you have
given to the focus on local communities.
The problem we have--if you are living in a fast-growing
area, is that those fast-growing areas are, more likely than
not, to continue to be fast-growing over the next 30 years. So,
whatever throughput you are getting in your system today, it is
going to increase. That means you are going to have
obstructions, and folks are going to get delayed. Travel times
that are half an hour today could become 45 minutes tomorrow,
could become an hour over the next 30 years.
I think what is vitally important here is that we begin our
thought process with what end we are trying to achieve. If the
end is more throughput, more efficiency, more effective, more
safety, then what you are talking about is vitally important,
which is trying to address some of these issues at a more local
level, even more local than the State, where we can.
What we do through the bill is we create this FAST program,
which puts dollars in place that areas can compete for. But the
price of entry is that those areas have to either show how they
are working with their suburban communities, the rural
communities around those suburban areas, to develop a cohesive
plan. Or, consolidate their MPOs so that they can plan
effectively at the local level.
We think that when we have communities that are joined at
the hip from an economic standpoint, thinking together about
their infrastructure, we are going to get better outcomes and
better projects.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Chair, I would
just urge you and my colleagues also to consider putting
something in our bill that is going to accomplish some of these
ideas. And I thank you, and I waive back the rest of my time.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Ms. Frankel. With that, Mr. Davis
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been a very
interesting hearing. We talked about skunks and weather in
Florida. I am not a former mayor. And, you know, we have nice
weather in Illinois, just not nearly as many days as you have.
But it is a great opportunity, I think, to sit here and discuss
issues that are a lot less partisan than some other issues that
are being discussed in these buildings, as we speak today, Mr.
Secretary.
And one of the issues I came here to help solve is to
actually have a long-term, robustly funded highway bill to
rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, and find ways to do that.
As a matter of fact, I have a local transportation advisory
board, and my last guest at that advisor board meeting was your
predecessor, former Secretary Ray LaHood, who used to represent
a small portion of my district when he sat on this committee in
Congress, just a few short years ago.
And we talked about some of the options. We talked about
some of the priorities. And I know we have addressed, you know,
the thoughts of how do we come together, is it going to be a
certain funding source. Those are discussions that we can have.
But I would urge you and others to take some advice from my
transportation advisory board, that it is about creating
somewhat of a portfolio of funding sources, so that we are not
just stuck on one funding source that may go up and down with
the price of gasoline, may go up and down with CAFE standards
that are being pushed by the Federal Government, itself, may go
up and down with the further innovation of electric and LNG
technology, and maybe up to the fleet levels, which could have
a devastating impact on our gas tax revenues, and we would then
be stuck in the same boat.
So, those are the types of issues that I think we can
easily work together, and I think this committee hearing showed
that to you, too, Mr. Secretary. But also in my transportation
advisory board, in honor of the former mayor, and my colleague,
Ms. Frankel, I had a lot of input from my local officials, and
they want more local--they want more local control. They want a
dedicated funding source for more local projects, so that they
can work together with our Federal officials and our State
officials in Illinois.
And, with that, more local control of transportation--now,
this is a top priority of mine. I cosponsored the Innovation--
actually, originally sponsored the Innovation and Surface
Transportation Act that is going to do that. And in the new
highway bill, where you see local--where do you see local
communities having opportunities to share in funding?
Secretary Foxx. I think that is one of the reasons why
having a strong, robust TIGER program continue is very
important, because that has been an area where local
communities have had the ability to reach for Federal funding
directly, and get it.
Our transit investments in New Starts and Small Starts are
also places where local government needs to continue to have
the Federal Government's support. And then, this FAST program
that I was just talking about with Representative Frankel,
which gives local communities a real shot at some dedicated
funding to get projects done in a more localized area, is also
a very important area.
Finally, TIFIA, our loan products, loan portfolio, is also
a very important tool that local communities can access. And,
as you well know, local communities are becoming very creative
when it comes to figuring out ways to get things done, and we
should continue to encourage that experimentation.
Mr. Davis. I would appreciate that consideration from your
agency, and look forward to working with you on that.
The Federal Government not only has a role in
transportation, but also research. A number of the universities
in my district participate in the University of Transportation
Center program, whose goal--the goal is to improve education,
and also increase competitiveness. What role do you see your
agency playing in transportation research and technology
development, as we move this debate forward?
Secretary Foxx. The budget that was released last week
actually does contain substantial amounts of research, I think
about $1 billion in automation alone. We think that this is
really an area that is critically important.
Transportation historically has been a lagging sector, when
it comes to integrating technology. With so many advances that
are right in front of us, we think now is the time to really
pivot very strongly towards integrating those technologies.
One example of a way that technology is changing
transportation is with bridges that are now being installed in
the space of 48 or 72 hours, because they are being crafted in
a factory someplace, they are being rolled out to the site. The
old bridge is taken down, the new bridge is put in, within a
very short period of time. That is a technology, an approach,
that has just come up in the last several years. But we are
trying to do more of that.
Mr. Davis. Well, I would encourage you to continue to work
with our universities. And Illinois will only take the entire
billion, if you would let them.
Well, thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize Ms.
Edwards for questions.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And to the
ranking member, as well, and to you, Secretary Foxx.
You know, I am a commuter; I live here, in the Metropolitan
Washington area, in Maryland. Every morning I, like many of my
constituents, wake up, you know, 5 o'clock, 6 o'clock in the
morning. First thing we do is turn on the television, look at
the traffic report, and then we follow it all the way until it
is time for us to leave our homes, so that we can see that we
have to add that extra half hour on to our commute, just to get
to work on time.
And sometimes, you know, you are there a half an hour
early, and sometimes you are a half an hour late, or sometimes
you are on time. And that is the kind of time that commuters
are wasting all over this country, not spending time with their
families, not getting home in time to pick the kids up from
daycare, because we are paying attention to our commute, and
because of the congestion.
Yesterday I woke--of course I woke up this morning, and
looked, like a lot of us did, and saw a report of a woman who
was driving on the Suitland Parkway. And she was driving up
under the beltway, and a block of concrete fell on her car, and
she is lucky that she wasn't hurt, and that other commuters
weren't, as well.
And so, now, I guess, in addition to paying attention to
the drivers on the road, that we are going to have to look up
to make sure that concrete doesn't fall onto our cars. This is
what our commuters are facing every single day, because the
infrastructure, as we have said, is falling apart.
I think, while it is true that I believe that you, as the
Secretary and the President, have an obligation to go across
the country and talk to the American public about why we have
to just step up and invest in our infrastructure, it is not
just your responsibility. It is my responsibility to go out to
our constituents in the Fourth Congressional District and say,
``We are going to have to pay for our infrastructure, or you
are going to have to watch for blocks of concrete falling on
your vehicles.''
And I think it is going to take some combination of funding
ideas. I don't like it, if the administration is going to
foreclose any of those, including a gas tax and a transaction
tax, and, you know, this sort of one-time bringing money back.
I mean all of those things have to be on the table to fund our
infrastructure. And we will have to explain to our constituents
why we are doing it, why we are asking them to step up, and
then trust that they will tell you just what they are telling
us and you all around the country: ``We think that is OK,
because we may not trust the way you guys spend a whole bunch
of other money, but we want you to spend it on
infrastructure.'' That is our responsibility, and I take it
very seriously.
In MAP-21, as you know--let me get back to this other--we
authorized fundamental changes in the Federal safety oversight
of public transportation. I authored a bill, along with Senator
Mikulski, that passed, that provided for us to develop those
safety standards. Today, the NTSB is issuing some emergency
recommendations following that Metro accident a few weeks ago.
And what they are saying is, ``We want to make sure that we
test the ventilation systems, not just in Metro, but in systems
all across the country.''
What I want to know is where we are in the process of
developing those standards for heavy rail systems, so that our
commuters, people who use transit, can feel confident when they
get up and go to work in the morning.
Secretary Foxx. It is a great question. I want to say that
I did acknowledge the incident in Maryland last night. But
there is no excuse for that in this country. There is none. I
think that I stand with you in doing everything I can to see us
get a bill that takes care of that problem, but also the
problems we have all across the country.
On the issue of the transit safety, we have spent the time,
from the passage of MAP-21 to now, basically developing a
mechanism that mimics a lot of what we have learned through FAA
on safety, a safety management system is probably the best in
the world, quite frankly. One of the final steps we have to do,
in terms of providing the oversight, is to push a rulemaking
out that defines how we are going to implement what MAP-21
says. That rulemaking is very far along within the Department.
We hope to push it out this spring, move it through the
interagency process and out the door as quickly as possible.
But the urgency is not lost on us, and we will absolutely take
a careful look at what the NTSB recommends, and you have my
assurance we will do everything we can to prevent these
accidents from happening.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentlelady. And, with that, Mr.
Graves is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Secretary, we haven't had the opportunity to meet yet, but your
reputation, universally on this committee, is excellent, and I
look forward to the opportunity to work with you. I think
having the perspective from the ground, as you have over the
years, is very beneficial to your position. Again, looking
forward to getting to know you better.
First question pertains to the Highway Trust Fund funding
mechanism. As you know, dating back decades, the funding
mechanism has been based on more of a user fee-type approach.
In GROW AMERICA--and you noted that you did put your cards on
the table, and I certainly commend you for putting a proposal
on the table, but it significantly deviates from that approach
of a user fee. And potentially, long term, is it a sustainable
funding stream?
I am just curious about your brief comments on divorcing
that user fee-type approach and the long-term sustainability of
the repatriation.
Secretary Foxx. We haven't divorced ourselves from it, yet,
as a Nation, but we are separated. Over the last 6 years, what
has happened is basically General Fund transfers and other
gimmicks to get the Highway Trust Fund back to level. I want to
make clear that I think that it hasn't been the case that, over
the last several years, that we have actually used just gas
taxes to fund our system.
Having said that, I think we should look at the system, as
we have it today, and look at the funding challenges we have
had, as an opportunity to think differently about not only how
we fund it, which--we have given you a specific idea there--but
what those funds actually get put towards, so that we can build
for the country we are becoming, and not for the country we
were 30 years ago.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Sure, and again, I appreciate the
fact that you put something on the table. I guess the question,
more directly, is do you believe that it, from a policy
perspective, it makes sense for us to walk away from a user
fee-type model?
Secretary Foxx. I think there will always be a role for the
gas tax. It does bring in revenue, it is just that it doesn't
bring enough revenue to keep the Highway Trust Fund afloat.
I also think that we have been a little rigid in how we
think of our surface transportation system, and what we expect
out of it. And, frankly, what revenues that the current level
of spending gets us, given the country we are going into. So,
instead of seeing it as a constraint, I think the opportunity
we have right now is to look at what we need out of the system,
and work backwards.
What you may find is that the user fee, as we know it, is
part of that answer, but there are other ways that we maybe
should be looking at it, going forward. And our pay-for
introduces one way.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. Next question, bringing
things back home, I represent the south Louisiana areas, Baton
Rouge, included. As I recall, the Interstate 10 there, it is
one of the only places in the Nation that the interstate drops
down to one lane. It is an extraordinary choke point. If you
pull up your Google map right now, I am guessing it is going to
be all red through there.
The State has historically not fared very well under TIGER
grant and other discretionary grant programs. Whenever I look
at the mandatory split of 20 percent for transit, and sometimes
see buses passing by with two folks on them, it doesn't always
seem to be kind of, I guess, best bang for the buck being
invested in some cases. One, I think that our projects would
compete very well nationally, in regard to TIGER grants; but,
secondly, in some cases, some of the transit investments seem
that they would be a lower priority than addressing this
bottleneck that has implications from Houston all the way over
to the Atlantic.
We have one of the largest port systems in the world, huge
freight transit. And just curious if you could comment on that.
Secretary Foxx. You know, I have been on I-10 before, and I
know that an area like Baton Rouge has basically doubled in
population since Hurricane Katrina. And that has taxed the
infrastructure systems.
We put, I don't know, $40-plus billion into formula funds
down to the States. So most of the highway dollars that go into
our highway systems are given to the States, and then the
States are charged with deciding how to spend them. If that
highway hasn't been expanded, I think my question would be
where is the State in this question, and why have they not
taken advantage of the opportunity to get that done?
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Which--I am out of time, and
certainly could have a much longer discussion here. But I just
want to note that certainly some of the unique challenges, from
an engineering perspective, that we have in Louisiana, with
soil stabilities and others, make it much more expensive and
difficult to do projects, waterway crossings, and other things.
So, thank you.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. Thank the gentleman. With that, Mr. Maloney
from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Maloney. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your time this
morning. Last week there was a terrible accident in my
district--excuse me, just south of my district--but that took
the lives of several of my constituents, who live in the
Westchester portion of my district. The accident related to
someone being in a grade crossing. And while we don't often
think of that as an instant that involves a problem with the
railroad itself, the fact is that is where the overwhelming
number of fatalities occur in rail accidents, are in grade
crossings like the one in Valhalla, New York. Six people were
killed in this accident: the driver and five people on the
train.
There are some critical Federal grant programs that relate
to the safety of rail crossings. One we are working on in the
PRRIA bill--and I want to thank the chairman for his--and the
ranking member for their assistance on this, and particularly
to the subcommittee chairman and ranking member, Mr. Denham,
Mr. Capuano, along with Mr. Shuster, Mr. DeFazio, so that we
can restore critical funding in the passenger rail bill for
grade crossing safety.
But also in the highway context, there has also been,
historically, money for highway crossing and rail crossing
safety money. I believe there is about $250 million in the
President's budget.
My concern would be that, given the number of accidents we
have seen at grade crossings, given the simple, direct
relationship between relocating those crossings, putting an
underpass under it, a little bridge over it, or simply
improving the safety measures around it, the direct link
between that and saving people's lives, and the large number of
grade crossings--there are 5,300 in my State alone--do you
think that is an adequate amount of resources to address this
problem? And could you just speak to the importance of those
grant programs?
Secretary Foxx. Well, first of all, Congressman, my
condolences to the constituents in your area who either were
victimized by this incident, or have been alarmed by what
happened there. And my heart and prayers go out to the family
and friends of those who died.
Safety is the top priority of USDOT. What you are speaking
to are two variations on how we attack this issue. One is
making sure that we have adequate resources to do grade
crossings, and the safety measures associated with them, as
best we can. We do have programs in the Federal Government to
help with that. We are also studying new technologies and other
things that could help us advance safety on conventional grade
crossings.
The other question that you are raising gets back to this
question of our infrastructure deficit, which is, you know, are
there ways that we can grade separate to avoid those types of
conflicts, all together. And the fact of the matter is there is
not enough money in the system to help us do that,
particularly--even on some of the highest danger areas.
Mr. Maloney. So is it fair to say that the amount of money
in the President's budget, which I believe is about $250
million, for the rail highways crossing program is, in your
mind, a minimum amount of money that we are required to keep
these crossings safe, or to improve safety at that----
Secretary Foxx. What I am saying is that I think, as far as
that particular program, on an annual basis that would be a
helpful amount of money to have. But I think, on the issue of
separating grades, which comes through other programs like the
Federal highway program or other programs in Federal rail,
right now, we are just not spending enough money to really
attack that problem as comprehensively as we need to.
Mr. Maloney. Thank you for that. I also, because my time is
limited, want to shift topics to ask you about the DOT-111
rule. I appreciate your comments very much, that this is a top
priority for you. I know that it has been moved over now to the
White House.
What is your expectation about when we can get a DOT-111
rule to get these cars upgraded in time to do us some good? We
had a hearing last week on this very subject, but everyone
seems to be frustrated with the time it is taking. So I
appreciate your remarks that it is a priority. I know you have
done your piece of this recently. What is a realistic timeframe
to be getting a final rule on this critical issue?
Secretary Foxx. It is a timeframe that goes beyond my
ownership. This is an administration-wide interagency review
that has to occur. We are pushing as hard and as fast as we
can. I cannot give you a timeframe, but what I can tell you is
there is no one in my building or at the White House or
anyplace else that is confused about how urgently I think this
rule needs to move forward.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much. Thank the gentleman. With
that, I recognize Mr. Massie for 5 minutes.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Foxx, thanks for coming here today. I really
appreciate your comments, and I am reminded of why I like
serving on this committee. We have--it is a bipartisan
committee, and we all have the same objective, which is a
robust transportation infrastructure. And as--being the Member
from the district that contains the Brent Spence Bridge, I
particularly appreciated your comments and awareness of the
situation there.
I am sure you used that as an example, not because it
connects the Speaker of the House's district with the Senate
majority leader's State, but that it has a legitimate--yes--
what, me? But that it has a legitimate Federal nexus. I mean 3
percent of the Nation's freight goes across that bridge. There
are two interstates that come together and cross that bridge.
And so it is very important. It is one of those things that we
need to work on.
You know, we--it occurred to me, while I was sitting here,
that half of the members of this committee weren't even here
for MAP-21, and that is how much turnover we have had in
Congress. So forgive us if we ask some obvious questions that
you have had to answer before. And I have one of those
questions. You know, our constituents send us here, and they
expect us to question the way things have been done.
But one of the questions I have is--and maybe you could
help me with this--why is it that we constrain ourselves to say
that mass transit and public transportation has to be funded
with the Highway Trust Fund, and not, for instance, the General
Fund? Why do we do it that way? Why was it done that way before
we got here?
Secretary Foxx. That is a very good question. And the
answer is that there is a huge difference between having a
revenue source that is recurrent, and a revenue source that
isn't. The difference is predictability. I can tell you, having
been a mayor, we are not spending 100 percent of the Federal
money to get transit projects done. Usually there is a share.
When you are going to your community and saying, ``Hey, we
need to get the next transit project done, and we have got to
put up 50 percent, 60 percent,'' whatever the percentage is,
you want to have assurance that when you go to the voters to
get those resources, that the Federal Government share is
actually going to happen. Having the transit part of it in the
trust fund is critical, because it provides that certainty.
Mr. Massie. That makes sense, you know, the predictability
of it. But it gets us away from that user fee model, which I
think is an admirable model to follow, that the people using
the resource are the ones paying for it. In this case, the
highways is what I am talking about.
And--but following up on predictability, you know, now
that--because we have mass transit in the Highway Trust Fund,
we are actually sometimes, this summer, jeopardizing the
funding for some of these highway projects if we don't come up
with a solution before then. So I think we should--things might
have changed a little bit, maybe the Highway Trust Fund was
more flush before inflation kicked in, and I think it is
something maybe we should relook--we should take a look at.
One quick question that I have--and this is much simpler,
easier thing to solve--in the State of the Union speech, the
President reiterated his commitment to veterans, and making
sure that they were--had long-term employment when they
returned to our country after serving our country. And I want
to point out that the trucking industry has long employed
veterans and their families. And--but recently, the FMCSA has
required people who want to be in that industry, to get a CDL
commercial driver's license, to receive a DOT physical from
somebody registered with the National Registry of Certified
Medical Examiners.
Now, we looked into this, and it turns out, at the VA, in
the VA, there are only 12 doctors that are certified to give
these physicals to the veterans seeking their CDLs. Is there
something we could do about that to make sure that veterans
aren't left in the lurch, or don't fall through the cracks
here?
Secretary Foxx. Let me take a look at that, Congressman. My
understanding is that we are doing everything we can to make it
easier for veterans to get in these careers, the philosophy
being that if you can drive a, you know, huge-ton vehicle in
Afghanistan, you ought to be able to drive one here, in the
U.S.
And so, let me try to figure out and get down to the bottom
of what you are talking about. But our goal is to help out.
Mr. Massie. I appreciate that.
Mr. Shuster. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank the
gentleman.
And Mr. Lipinski is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary
Foxx, for being here, and all the work that you do. I want to
start by thanking--I appreciate the support that DOT has given
to Chicago in the past few months, to the CTA for $35 million
made available in August to the Red and Purple Line
modernization, and the recent approval of the TIFIA loan for
the Blue Line.
I know the transit authority is also very appreciative of
this funding, especially of the ridership, along with the state
of good repair, which--that the backlog--which, right now is
about $36.1 million in the--for all of the transit in the
Chicago region.
I know that, you know, we do have our debates about
transit, and the funding for transit, but I certainly think--
just take, for example, I paid $4.65--I Metroed to get here
this morning, which seems like it is not a really cheap fare,
there were probably 700, 800 people on the train I was on, and
I think everyone who drove today is probably happy those people
weren't on the road this morning, making even more congestion.
So I think it is very important that we do fund public transit.
There is an important role for public transit, and it does help
people on our roads to not have more cars on the road, causing
more congestion and more--really, chewing up our roads more.
Is there anything--you know, what tools do we have right
now to help a region like Chicago, DC, over the next 10 years
reach a state of good repair? And what tools or programs should
we look at developing or authorizing in the next surface
transportation reauthorization to help with this great backlog?
Secretary Foxx. Well, thank you for your comments,
Congressman. I agree with you, that there is a benefit to users
of the highway system to have a strong transit system,
particularly in highly congested areas. We are even finding, in
some of our rural communities, where people are not as
connected as job access, having those systems in place.
We introduced several tools in the GROW AMERICA Act that
speak to this issue of maintaining a state of good repair,
including the critical infrastructure investment program that I
talked about before, which puts billions in place specifically
for maintenance. Within transit, specifically, we would expand
the core capacity program, which is focused on helping some of
our legacy systems maintain their assets in even better shape.
Again, some of the programs that I have talked about
before, such as TIFIA, which was used in Chicago just last
week, to help fix up the Blue Line in that city is another tool
that is available, as well as the TIGER program, which we would
urge this Congress to continue. And private activity bonds, as
well. So there are lots of tools that we expand on in the GROW
AMERICA Act to help improve things.
Mr. Lipinski. Very good. Thank you. A couple things I just
want to touch on very quickly. I think it is important that we
have a strong research title in the bill. As Ms. Esty was
talking about, it is very important that we do all that we can
in leveraging innovation to help to decrease the congestion on
our roads. And I think, certainly, we can do a lot with R&D
that will help us to do that, and other ways that we can help
with surface transportation by doing the R&D.
The other thing is I wanted to echo Representative
Maloney's comments about the need for more help for--at grade
crossings, and also for grade separations, for--to improve
safety.
And one last thing. I just want to ask if you could tell me
when you anticipate FHWA's--will release the final primary
freight network. Because, certainly, something in Chicago, as
the hub of the Nation, with over $3 trillion of freight moving
through, something very important to us. So is there anything
you could tell me about that?
Secretary Foxx. We expect to release the primary freight
network this year. That is work that has been ongoing since
MAP-21 was passed. We are looking forward to moving that
through, and publishing it, and sharing it with you.
Mr. Lipinski. Very good. Look forward to that. I yield
back.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. Thank the gentleman. With that, I recognize
Governor Sanford.
Mr. Sanford. Good to see you again, a pleasure. Thank you
for being here, and thank you for your forbearance in working
your way through the list of attendees. A couple quick
questions.
One is, you know, a basic accounting rule is to match up
long-term liabilities with long-term assets, and vice versa,
with regard to short-term obligations. And so, in as much as
there have been three different conversations with the last
three speakers on mass transit, it seems to break that rule, as
we both know, in that a number of things have been hobbled to
the trust fund that don't contribute to the trust funds. So we
are--you have a mismatch, from a funding standpoint,
irregardless of the merits of the different, you know, programs
that have been added, whether it is with the, you know,
alternative programs, in terms of bicycle paths, and what not,
or, indeed, with mass transit.
Why not go back to the simple core of that which
contributes to the Highway Trust Fund gets money from the
Highway Trust Fund? Why wouldn't that be a sensible idea?
Secretary Foxx. Well, I am not sure what mechanism one
would use to support the transit needs of this country.
Mr. Sanford. Well, I mean, if--General Fund, I mean,
General Fund seems to be yanked on from a lot of different
spots, and this would go on the list.
Secretary Foxx. We solved this problem by creating a
transportation trust fund, calling it that, and having it
supported, in part, by this pro-growth business tax reform.
Mr. Sanford. But if we were to go back in time, folks that
stood in that same spot that you are sitting in would have said
the exact same thing about the origination of the Highway Trust
Fund, prior to these different bells and whistles getting added
to it.
Secretary Foxx. I have to concern myself--and I would urge
the committee to concern itself--with what is actually
happening out in the country. What is happening is these choke
points that exist on our highways are going to increase. We
have seen examples, where you add a lane of highway to relieve
that congestion, and it works for a year or two, and all of a
sudden population comes in, and you are in the same place you
were.
So, if we want to be on that treadmill, I think it is going
to mean more traffic, longer travel times. That is not to say
that we don't need strong investment in our highways. We do----
Mr. Sanford. Well, why not more experimentation there in
alternate pricing? I think, if I am not mistaken, that is San
Diego. And I know a number of other countries around the globe
have gone to, basically, premium pricing at premium travel
times for additional capacity. Not existing capacity, but
additional capacity. And, in some cases, it has worked to
alleviate travel, because, you know, you could pick up your
groceries, you know, at 5 o'clock, or you could pick them up
earlier or after, and there is a real, you know, difference
there, in terms of traffic load. Why not more experimentation
and more flexibility with regard to premium pricing?
Secretary Foxx. On that score, we agree with you, that
experimentation should be an option. But it should be an option
at the local level. The Department should have a role in
deciding whether that is an appropriate use of, for example,
tolling.
We don't purport to toll every single stretch of highway
across the country. But if a given Governor wants to experiment
with it, we think they ought to at least be able to make their
case.
Mr. Sanford. Two quick--I see I am running short. One
question not related to the Highway Trust Fund bill is I know
we have been waiting on a DOT report with regard to truck
weights and--I guess it was around November. Where are we on
that? When can we expect to actually see that report?
Secretary Foxx. We are pushing as hard as we can. As I said
before, we promised the stakeholders on all sides of this issue
very robust stress-testing that they would be involved in,
including public input. So, we still have steps to go there.
But my hope is we get it done as soon as possible.
Mr. Sanford. Why not more in the way of devolution? Some
people have said the way that you solve our highway problem is
more in the way of devolution back to States, because the
current model, in essence, favors old infrastructure over new.
It favors, you know, areas that maybe aren't growing as much as
other parts of the country are. Why not more experimentation on
that front, as well?
Secretary Foxx. Yes. I think we have got a bigger problem
than a highway problem. We have got a mobility problem. And the
mobility problem has lots of dimensions to it that include
highways.
I don't think we can go back to 1956. I think that would be
a mistake, because the country is moving in a very different
direction. The Millennials that are now more populous than the
Baby Boomers----
Mr. Sanford. Can I really interrupt? I see I have got 12
seconds.
Secretary Foxx. Yes.
Mr. Sanford. One last question. You may have to get it
submitted in writing.
Secretary Foxx. Yes.
Mr. Sanford. But just--you know, one other way of
stretching, obviously, highway trust--this ties back to Davis-
Bacon. As we all know, there is a premium on cost of
construction on Federal projects versus not. Why not use that
as another way of stretching Highway Trust Fund dollars?
Secretary Foxx. Well, if I can answer--OK. I would like to
finish what I was saying----
Mr. Sanford. OK, all right.
Secretary Foxx [continuing]. Which was that Millennials are
moving an entirely different way. They are moving closer in.
They are using bikes and other things. They are sharing cars,
using Zipcars, and stuff. And I don't think we should plan for
a system that was 1956. We need to plan for 2045. So that is on
that point.
On the other points, on labor, look, I think we firmly
believe in the American worker having a shot at jobs that build
up our country, and we don't yield from that.
Mr. Sanford. Thank you, again, for your time.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Sanford. Ms. Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, welcome
back. It is nice to see you.
You mentioned in your presentation about the tremendous
growth in the Southwest. I represent Las Vegas, as you know, so
I can attest to that. We have got 2 million people, and over 42
million tourists who come there every year. We want to invite
you out to see for yourself the challenges we face. I am sure
my colleague, Mr. Hardy, and I would be glad to host you, if
you will come and see us.
It is not news to you, either, that I am going to keep
pushing for I-11, and for a reopening of Amtrak between Las
Vegas and Los Angeles. But today my questions are a little
different.
I want to ask you about autonomous vehicles. I know you
recently rode in the Google car in southern California. Nevada
is one of the few States that has enacted legislation to allow
for the testing and driving of automatic vehicles. But I don't
want us to get behind the curve, like the FAA has done with
autonomous aerial vehicles, where the industry for drones is so
far ahead of Government that we are losing out to other
countries.
So, I would ask you to kind of address what you see as
Department of Transportation's role, moving forward with that
technology.
And my second question--and this is something you also
acknowledge in your GROW AMERICA proposal--has to do with the
importance of travel and tourism. Certainly, those agencies,
like convention authorities that oversee travel and tourism,
are greatly affected by the transportation decisions, but they
don't play much of a role in the whole planning process. So I
wonder if you might address how we could do a better job of
incorporating their needs and their expertise in that process.
Secretary Foxx. So, two things. We take a very strong lean-
in position on technology in the GROW AMERICA Act. I think the
President's budget speaks to this, with significant investments
in automation. Some of that is about understanding and working
with industry to develop the pathway for these technologies to
find their way into the marketplace.
But some of it also has to do with trying to start
addressing some of the unknowns around, you know, how connected
vehicles actually connect to each other, working with industry
to come up with ways to make that a reality. There are examples
of cars like the Google car, that is autonomous, that isn't
connected, doesn't need the connection to function. We have got
to develop the same kind of apparatuses that States like
California have begun to do, and we need to think about the
Federal role there. And that is what some of these investments
will help us do.
On your other question about----
Ms. Titus. Travel and tourism?
Secretary Foxx [continuing]. Travel and tourism, there are
several places where our bill, I think, helps. One of the most
important ones is that a lot of the idea generation for
projects comes at the local and State level. The more we can
connect the inputs into that process to economic growth and
economic development, the more output we are going to get, in
terms of supporting travel and tourism in other critical parts
of our economy.
So, this idea of encouraging local communities to form MPO
systems that are regional in nature, that actually have
resources to get projects done, and that bring in not only the
urban core, but the suburban and the rural areas around them to
work together and think together about how they want to define
themselves, I think that is an opportunity for the travel and
tourism industry to play a real role in getting real things
done on the ground.
Ms. Titus. Well, I am glad to hear you say that, because so
often the great bulk of the Federal dollars go to State
agencies to be distributed. Mr. Davis and I have a bipartisan
bill that we introduced again this year to bring more of that
decisionmaking to the local level, which would include
stakeholders from the business community, tourism, and other
bodies like that. So, if you take a look at it, we would
appreciate it.
Secretary Foxx. You got it.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Ms. Titus. Yield back.
Mr. Shuster. Thank the gentlelady. And, with that, I
recognize Mrs. Comstock, 5 minutes.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr.
Secretary. Thank you for your patience.
I wanted to return to the urgent report that was issued
today from the NTSB on the Metro situation that, obviously,
impacts a lot of my constituents. And I wanted to ask you,
given--you really have sort of an army of Davids right in your
own building who are experts on the Metro, because they ride it
every day, like my constituents. And they are also involved in
transportation policy.
So I kind of wanted to ask you, you know, on a human level,
and on just sort of an expertise level, did you have anyone
within the agency come to you and say, ``Hey, boss, this--you
know, I was there,'' or, ``I know people who were there,'' or,
``I ride the Metro every day, and we need to--you know, this
was done wrong. One, two''--you know, X, Y, or Z. Did you have
anybody kind of come to you and give you that firsthand and
bend your ear on that?
Secretary Foxx. We have employees that use the Metro system
that were impacted by the incident that happened recently here.
And we do have a role in doing a deep dive into this,
supporting the NTSB as they----
Mrs. Comstock. Right.
Secretary Foxx [continuing]. Look at it. We--I have not had
a person come to me with a technical explanation for what
happened, based on their personal observations. But we
recognize that, if there is anything within our sphere of
influence that we can do following this incident to attack it
so that it doesn't happen again here or elsewhere in the
country, we will do it. We will absolutely do it.
Mrs. Comstock. OK. And given--you know, the recommendations
came out today, and I appreciate that. But they are listed as
urgent, but it is a month after the incident. So, you know, I
think you can understand people might feel concerned about
that. And I certainly understand you want to go through a
process.
But I was wondering, in light of, you know, Delegate
Norton's comments, and Congresswoman Edwards, if you might be
able to agree to maybe go with some of us and just go on Metro
and, in light of these recommendations, maybe have some of your
experts come with us who kind of look at these things, and are
really the experts on transit, and take a ride, sort of a walk-
through/ride-through, with these recommendations in mind, and
just have, you know, those of us who can, you know, maybe do
something quickly, if we identify it, instead of waiting for
some of these reports that, I know when we met, they told us it
might be 6 months, and a lot of the things that we just need to
have done immediately. So if we might be able to find a date to
do that with some of my colleagues, I----
Secretary Foxx. I would be happy to.
Mrs. Comstock. Great. I would really appreciate it, and
thank you for--on that.
And I wanted to also mention I had been able to watch your
appearance with--I guess it was on a Google chat, or--with Mr.
Schmidt there, talking about transportation, and the vision
that you have. And one of the things that captured my attention
was when Google talked about, you know, the private bus system
that they have, and how they utilize that, and, apparently, how
they run from 5 a.m. to 10 a.m. They go all around and pick up
their employees, they--obviously, they are all wired in on
those buses. And it is an entirely private system.
And I know I have Capital One that serves in my district,
and they do a lot--probably not--maybe not as innovative as
Google, but they have a lot of that going on between the
Richmond office and their Tyson's Corner office, and they bring
people to the Metros, and they do that. Do you have other--an
inventory of other kind of private uses here? Because this is
entirely private, as far as I know, no public money here.
But what can we do to encourage those kind of innovative
things? You know, people are working on those buses. They are
there with their colleagues, probably a lot of business goes
on. It certainly looks like a win-win for Google; I know it is
for Capital One. How can we expand upon that, and help our
transit situation--kind of combines, you know, our technology
that we can all use, while we are on those buses? And what
additional things can we do in that area?
Secretary Foxx. I will ask my team to survey what we know
about that. It is not completely unlike what many universities
do. We do have at least some parallels there. But it is a
phenomenon that is interesting. And I will make sure we share
with you what we know.
Mrs. Comstock. OK. And I know there have been numerous
articles written about it that I saw, and it really did look
like a great way to, you know, get people in to work. And I
know in our areas where they have HOT lanes, they would be able
to use the HOT lanes doing that, so they would all have a
faster commute. But the flexibility that they use really seemed
very--you know, certainly probably can work a lot quicker than
some of the other public systems that we might be waiting to
get online. And so, if this is a good way we can complement
things, I would really like to see what more we can do on that.
And, Mr. Chairman, I hope we can maybe look at that more,
and see what we might be able to do in that arena, you know,
all across the country with a lot of our businesses.
Mr. Hardy [presiding]. The gentlelady's time has expired. I
would like to turn 5 minutes over to Mr. Babin.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Mr.
Secretary Foxx, I appreciate you being here, and enlivening
our--enlarging our knowledge on transportation and what is
going on in your world.
I am a former mayor, as well. Not as large of a town as
you, a small town in east Texas. But we do have a lot of
infrastructure there, and highways. And I guess one of the
biggest things that I have noticed, that--we want to ensure the
highway safety and the public safety, that it should be top
priority, and I know you agree with that.
But we have a number, or a percentage of our Highway Trust
Fund, precious dollars, that are going to--that are being spent
on beautification, bike trails, and nonessential things. And I
think, as of the passage of MAP-21 highway bill, took some of
the first steps towards releasing States from mandating
spending on these nonessential trails, beautification, et
cetera, and other projects.
But in my Texas district, which is part of Houston, part of
Harris County, but another eight rural counties, we have
bridges that are, literally, falling apart. And it is
distressing to the folks there, when we see a large bike
project that is going on, 10 miles of bike trails, millions of
dollars being spent, when we can't seem to get the bridges
repaired, which are endangering the public.
How much of a shift have you seen in States as to
redirecting some of these funds away from these enhancement
projects, and going to critical infrastructure like bridge
work? That is my first question. If you will answer that one, I
appreciate it.
Secretary Foxx. I would like to survey and come back to you
with more specifics. But just my casual observation, off the
top of my head, is that I think States and local governments
are struggling with the growth. All of them are struggling with
it in different ways. Some of them, part of the response is to
mix up what they are doing. And that is why you start to see
some of these investments in the bike/ped area.
Coincidentally, bike-pedestrian is the only area within
what we cover at DOT where we have seen an increase in
fatalities and accidents over the last 4 years, and I think
that may be driving some of those investments, as well. I
happen to think those are good investments, but I understand
the point.
Here is why we are here, though. We are here because, over
the many years, we just haven't taken care of what we have,
period. It is like having math homework that we haven't done
for the last month. Now we have got a bunch of it to do, and
there is only so much time to get it done. So I think this
accumulation of short-term thinking and underinvestment is
starting to hit us, and we are starting to look at stuff we
have been doing, and saying, ``Why are we doing this?''
But I think bike-pedestrian investments, the small amount
that we are putting--in the Federal Government--into those
things is actually worth it.
Mr. Babin. OK, thank you. And another thing, would you
support further changes that would allow States to redirect
some funds from the transit spending towards critical
infrastructure repair?
Secretary Foxx. I think the premise is that the transit
investments aren't critical. If you go up to, for instance,
Chicago and New York City, where they have got these subway
systems that are aging and old and falling apart, if that
system falls apart, our economy is going to fall apart.
I think that we have critical investments that need to be
made in both areas, quite frankly.
Mr. Babin. There is just not enough funding.
Secretary Foxx. Exactly. And if we pass the GROW AMERICA
Act, we will have it.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back my
time.
Mr. Hardy. The gentleman yields back. I would like to
provide 5 minutes for myself, if we may. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Hardy. As the--my colleague from Nevada recently spoke,
we share common exercise. We would like to see the I-11
corridor taken care of.
In your statement you mentioned that the States and local
governments should work together, and should be rewarded for
that, coordinating with each other and making decisions with
their neighboring governments. That--prioritizing funding for
freight projects that is essential benefit to a State's
economy.
I am proud to say that Nevada has been doing that for quite
some time, particularly with Arizona and Idaho on the Idaho--on
the I-11 corridor. And, as you may or may not know, Nevada--Las
Vegas, and Phoenix are the only two major cities that don't
have a north-south corridor. I was wondering what kind of--or
could you--if you elaborate on the Federal Government, how they
would be willing to help support locals in that coordination,
or that coordinate----
Secretary Foxx. Yes. I think it gets back to the FAST
program we have been talking about, where you have your MPO
system that would actually be empowered to do more, in terms of
actually delivering projects. The price for that would be you
would have to think regionally. It can't just be a city, it has
to be the surrounding area, and the rural areas surrounding it.
But we would actually provide not only the decisionmaking
mechanism, but actually resources to help get those projects
done, in addition to increasing the amount of money that the
State gets.
So much of where the dollars flow is at the State level. A
lot of these decisions are actually being made at the State
level, not at the Federal level, to either fund or not fund
things. What we are trying to do with this bill is we are
trying to put enough money in the system in enough different
ways for it to flow, that we get more projects done, and there
is more flexibility to get those projects done.
Mr. Hardy. You know, as the--looking at the State of
Nevada, in particular, we have been dealing with this--I was on
the public works regional transportation commission for a
number of years, trying to deal with this situation. Nevada,
Arizona, Utah, and other places don't get looked at the same
way as the congestion we have out here, because we have Federal
lands that are definitely between the two city corridors.
And so, unless you have ever had to spend all day--
sometimes close to 16 hours in traffic--driving from L.A. to
Las Vegas, you have never experienced traffic like you have
here. You know, at least you get off it. You could--from 11 to
16 hours. This has been a challenge, many times a year, for
many years. And so we get looked at as not a challenge in
traffic transportation, because we don't have that populous
between the two.
But this is a major freight corridor for Nevada and Utah,
and for the Midwest. We come right out of the Long Beach area,
the I-15 corridor. So it is congested, and I think that I-11
corridor will help solve that congestion, so people can go
across 40. This 15 corridor takes it all the way to the I-80
and I-70 corridors to go across the Nation. So I would like to
just make you aware of that. And thank you for your time.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Hardy. I would like to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Foxx,
for being here. I have got three points I want to hit on.
Secretary Foxx. Sure.
Mr. Gibbs. First, in your testimony you talk about
examples--I mean unnecessarily long review processes. That
could be NEPA studies and all that. And you don't have to
answer this part today, but can you give us maybe--the
committee--some specific examples of things we could do in the
next highway bill? And then what we did in MAP-21 to make the
next highway bill better, and that streamlining process?
And the second part, second part of my question, is the
GROW AMERICA Act. I think you just made a comment it is not
going to go about--we--GROW AMERICA Act will have the finances.
Secretary Foxx. Yes.
Mr. Gibbs. Well, I am going to respectfully disagree. First
of all, the President's proposed funding is not repatriation,
it is a new tax, because it is 14 percent on accrued profits of
American companies overseas, and 19 percent moving forward. And
so I don't know how you would actually enforce that, because I
think you actually have a consequence that--I don't know if--
why they haven't thought of this. I mean businesses will
probably be more likely to move their headquarters out of the
United States, since--and more--secondly, there will probably
be more inversions because--of more foreign companies buying
our American businesses. So I don't think that is a viable
solution.
But I think repatriation, if it is done right, is a viable
solution. I know Senators Paul and Boxer have a proposal out
there. I have been saying we ought to just say, ``If you bring
the money back, you pay 5 percent, and it all goes in the
Highway Trust Fund, and you do whatever you want with the other
95 percent.'' There is really only two things they can do with
it: invest in their businesses and grow jobs, or--pay
dividends. You know, I think everybody wins. Don't put all the
strings attached.
But I think repatriation ought to be on the table as part
of the solution. Maybe not the total solution, but part of the
solution.
But I guess my question on this part to you, what is it
that you or the administration doesn't like about that type
of--so that is repatriation, and not a new tax.
Secretary Foxx. I agree with you that our proposal is not
repatriation. Let me try to explain how ours works, and get--in
response to your question.
Right now, if a company has untaxed earnings overseas, to
bring that back they are going to be taxed at a 35 percent----
Mr. Gibbs. That is correct, yes.
Secretary Foxx. What our proposal actually does is it
actually imposes a one-time tax of 14 percent, which is a 21-
percent reduction off of what they would have been taxed, had
they just brought it overseas today, from----
Mr. Gibbs. But--correct me if I am wrong--it is a tax on
all their accrued profits, even if they don't bring it back,
right?
Secretary Foxx. That is right.
Mr. Gibbs. That is right. So it is a new tax.
Secretary Foxx. But what it does is it clears the field. It
is--they can bring it back, they can not bring it back----
Mr. Gibbs. Well, I think they can bring it back to 5 or 6
percent, and they are more likely to do that.
Secretary Foxx. Well, it gets done one time. Then, going
forward--and that, the 14 percent, is how we pay for our bill.
The 19 percent is a go-forward on future earnings overseas, and
there is actually a fairly complicated way that they reduce
the----
Mr. Gibbs. OK, I got to move on, but----
Secretary Foxx. Yes.
Mr. Gibbs [continuing]. I think the unintended consequence
could be more inversions, and----
Secretary Foxx. This is an approach that Chairman Camp
introduced last year as a proposal. It is one that has been
introduced on a bipartisan basis. There are differences in the
rate, but it is basically the same approach.
Mr. Gibbs. Well, I think that part is a new tax--OK, we
will disagree, we will disagree on that.
Third-part question I want to get here in my last 90
seconds is I hear from a lot of my truckers of the FMCSA and
the CSA program, how they get dinged if they--their records if
they have an accident and it is not their fault, somebody rear-
ends them, you know, clearly there is accidents that, clearly,
sometimes the other person's fault, and not--but it doesn't
matter on--for their records. And, you know, it puts them--adds
cost, their insurance rates can go up, all kinds of problems.
Can add to the cost of their customers they are trying to
serve, because they want cleaner records.
What is your thoughts on that? It seems like, to me, that
is not right.
Secretary Foxx. We are taking a look at this question. I
have heard the same concerns. On the other end of the scale,
there is also some advantage to transparency and folks knowing
what they are getting when they pay for a certain operator to
do a service. And so, we are trying to figure out what the
right balance is, and I promise you we are taking a look at it.
Mr. Gibbs. And I think, to also--to build on it a little
bit more, it has broken down in categories. And I have one
trucking firm that moved up--which way--in a whole category.
Even though he had an impeccable record, he got dinged because
he--a different category, and it was just--it is not working. I
guess that is how--so I yield back my time. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. Thank the gentleman. And, with that, Mr.
Woodall has just had a timely entrance. Mr. Rouzer, I will have
to put you on hold. Mr. Woodall is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Foxx, I
appreciate your waiting on those of us who are running behind.
I know Mr. Massie talked to you earlier about certified
medical examiners, and the impact on veterans. I wanted to ask
you about the impact on other folks. I know when we passed
SAFETEA-LU here, when you promulgated your regulations, driver
safety, road safety, passenger safety, all of those safety
issues were job one.
But we have a number of family-owned trucking companies in
my district, as you would imagine. I have one constituent, his
name is James Cooper, and he--his family has--for generations,
has owned Cooper Trucking. But he can't go to his family
physician, because his family physician didn't decide to go
through the process to become a member of the registry. And so,
rather than going to the physician who has known him his entire
life, knows all of his frailties and all of his strengths, he
had to go to a chiropractor that he had never met before, no
knowledge of his history.
And since our common goal is certifying safety, I guess my
question to you is, have we achieved that goal with the
registry? Because it seems counterintuitive to me that sending
someone to a doctor they have never seen before, but who has
taken the 3-hour class to be a part of the registry, rather
than going to that family physician they have seen for 50
years, may actually bring us a less desirable result, rather
than a more desirable result. Could you speak to that?
Secretary Foxx. As I said before, this is something I need
to go back to our team and drill down on. If your friend is a
veteran, and is trying to get the work driving trucks, our
posture has been to try to help make that happen as seamlessly
as possible. So, let me just go back to the team and give you a
written response, if you don't mind.
Mr. Woodall. I don't. But--though I may be asking a
slightly different question. You know, when I think about
SAFETEA-LU in 2005, I think about folks trying to deal with
fraud in medical certifications, and saying, ``In order to
prevent fraud, we are going to make sure everybody, every
physician, is certified, becomes a part of this registry.'' The
constituent I am thinking of is not a veteran, just a rank-and-
file owner-operator of a small trucking company. And yet, in
the name of safety, because of the laws we have written, the
regulations you have promulgated, he cannot go to his physician
to get the medical certification, he has to go to someone who
knows nothing about his frailties.
And we did that, I suppose--I wasn't here at the time, you
were not in your job at the time--we did that, I suppose, to
prevent fraud from occurring in the industry, where folks were
just cycling through medical certifications, one right after
the other. It strikes me we have a lot of different tools in
our arsenal to prevent that fraud. We could pass a statute that
says, ``If DOT catches you in a fraudulent certification, we
are going to take away all your Medicare and Medicaid
eligibility for the next 20 years.'' We could stop that
together.
This was our effort at doing that. But I cannot conceive of
a scenario where, being certified by someone who does not know
my conditions and my history, is going to lead to a better
result than being certified for someone who does know that
history. I know you are constrained by statute in many ways
there, but I would welcome the opportunity to work with you.
Or, if what you will come back and tell me, after you and
your team have reviewed it, is that this has a material impact
on passenger safety, road safety, operator safety, I would like
to hear that determination, as well. But my guess is, in our
effort to do better, we may actually be creating some results
that are less safe, unintended consequences that perhaps we
could work together to repair.
Secretary Foxx. I look forward to that, and I look forward
to--and I appreciate your openness to hearing us out on kind of
where it comes from, and how it works.
Also, I think it speaks to the broader set of issues. You
all are going to have a massive task in front of you in writing
a highway bill. I would just urge you that, when there are
questions or concerns going--on a forward-going basis, we want
to be open to you for technical assistance, because sometimes
we can catch issues before they become issues in law. So----
Mr. Woodall. I appreciate that. I look forward to that
partnership, as well.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much. With that, Mr. Rouzer.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, great
to have you here.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Rouzer. I am a fellow North Carolinian, as you know,
representing southeastern North Carolina. And on behalf of the
rest of the North Carolina delegation, we are proud to have you
where you are.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Rouzer. And I appreciate you coming before the
committee.
In my district I have got I-95 and I-40 that cut right
through the middle of it. And in my home county of Johnston
County, if you ride through I-95 and you are asleep, you will
be awake after you get through. That part of I-95 is probably
one of the worst portions of 95 through the State of North
Carolina.
And, of course, one of the things that our local business
owners and others in the area probably detest more than
anything is the idea of tolling. And--but, obviously, we have a
great need, and significant shortfall in the Highway Trust
Fund, et cetera.
One of the things I have always wondered about when I
served in the State legislature I chaired our Regulatory Reform
Committee. You know, rules and regulations significantly add to
the time delay and the cost, et cetera, you know, for our
infrastructure system. In fact, I would bet just about
everything I have ever saved in my life on it, that if you had
the rules and regulations in place--if you had in place what we
have today--back when we were putting in the Interstate Highway
System, you know, years ago, you couldn't even do it. The rules
and regulations are so onerous today that we wouldn't have the
Interstate Highway System that we have in place. And,
obviously, that has been a great benefit to the growth of this
economy over a number of decades, and really helped to make
America the economic powerhouse superpower that it is.
So that, you know, as a backdrop, are we doing anything,
are we looking at all these rules and regulations? Because it
just seems to me that, you know, that is a huge component of
the cost.
Secretary Foxx. Short answer is yes. This is actually an
area that I think President Obama is much more focused on than
I think he is given credit for, because he has really forced
all of the agencies to do retrospective regulatory reviews to
look at the pile of regulations that are out there, and to cut
away those that are unnecessary.
We were talking about trucks before. One of the ones that
we have issued that is a paper reduction effort is the DVIR
rule in trucking, which--you know, before we issued this, if
you drove a truck you had to inspect the truck before you took
a trip, inspect it after you took a trip. And on both ends you
had to send us paper, or file paper that would say that the
truck was OK. What we have done is we have eliminated that
requirement when the truck meets standard. That is saving the
trucking industry $1.7 billion annually. And those types of
things are things we are looking to do more of.
Now, there are some regulations that we think are necessary
to protect the environment, let's say, or something else that
is vital. But we are continuing to work towards reducing
redtape where we can.
Mr. Rouzer. Well, I just know, from, you know, talking to
our transportation experts back home, it is just amazing to me
how long it takes, from beginning to end, you know, to make
these improvements, you know, funding notwithstanding. And I
just really encourage you--clearly, there is a balance. We all
want to protect the environment, we all care about all of God's
creatures.
I would also suggest, though, that, you know, in places
like China and elsewhere, when they want to build a road, they
just build a road. And those are the folks that we are
competing against. And so, you know, we have got to have a good
balance there.
One other thing that came to mind. I was told this
statistic not long ago, that if you have a vehicle and you are
getting an average of 25 miles per gallon, and you travel about
10,000 miles per year, you are basically only paying roughly
$83--$81--$83 or so in Federal gas tax.
Now, outside of tolling, are there some other ideas, in
terms of financing? Particularly, I am curious about innovative
financing tools that perhaps other States are doing, where we
can help them, or anything that we could adopt.
Secretary Foxx. That is a great question, and it gets us
into a discussion of the difference between funding and
financing.
When we use public-private partnerships, let's say, there
are lots of different tools. Existing tax revenues can be used
to support public-private partnerships. Tolling is one example,
development-oriented revenues that bring in additional tax
revenues on new development that happened because of
transportation assets in place, using those revenues to plow
and repay the cost of that asset. These things are tools that
local and State governments have. We can do more at the Federal
level to help.
But to your point on redtape, I think that we have got a
huge opportunity, as we work to reduce redtape and getting
projects done. I share with you the frustration of projects
taking too long. I think we can shorten the time. We have, and
we can do more.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Appreciate you--it
has been 3 hours now. We didn't know it was going to go this
long, but there was tremendous interest in being here, asking
you questions today. I think we have almost all--we only have
59 Members. Almost every Member that was here today
participated in some way. So, again, really appreciate you
taking the time and answering the questions.
You and I are going to continue this conversation on
Twitter. Last time we did a Twitter town hall on WRRDA, and we
had 3.5 million viewers, and 1 million unique visitors. I am
not sure if that means they are aliens, but I am not a Twitter
guy. So I am going to stumble and bumble through this, but I
look forward to doing that with you. Again, thank you so much
for being here today.
And I ask unanimous consent the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witness has brought answers
to any questions that may be submitted to him in writing, and
unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for
additional comments and information submitted by Members or the
witness to be included in today's record.
[No response.]
Mr. Shuster. Without objection, so ordered. And the
committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:59 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]