[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LIFT AMERICA: MODERNIZING OUR
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE FUTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 22, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-38
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-559 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
Chair BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
Massachusetts MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, prepared statement.............................. 144
Hon. Adam Kinzinger, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, prepared statement................................ 145
Witnesses
Brian Wahler, Mayor, Piscataway, New Jersey, on behalf of the
U.S. Conference of Mayors...................................... 9
Prepared statement \1\
Mignon L. Clyburn, Former Acting Chairwoman, Federal
Communications Commission...................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Answers to submitted questions............................... 187
Jessica Eckdish, Legislative Director, BlueGreen Alliance........ 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Answers to submitted questions............................... 190
Daniel A. Lyons, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute,
and Professor, Boston College Law School....................... 47
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Answers to submitted questions............................... 194
Christopher Guith, Acting President, Global Energy Institute,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce....................................... 55
Prepared statement........................................... 58
John Auerbach, President and Chief Executive Officer, Trust for
America's Health............................................... 69
Prepared statement........................................... 71
Submitted Material
H.R. 2741, the Leading Infrastructure for Tomorrow's America Act,
submitted by Mr. Pallone \2\
Summary of the Leading Infrastructure for Tomorrow's America Act,
submitted by Mr. Pallone....................................... 147
Letter of May 22, 2019, from Thomas C. Kiernan, Chief Executive
Officer, American Wind Energy Association, to Mr. Pallone and
Mr. Walden, submitted by Mr. Pallone........................... 151
Letter of May 22, 2019, from Philip A. Squair, Vice President,
Government Relations, National Electrical Manufacturers
Association, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, submitted by Mr.
Pallone........................................................ 153
----------
\1\ Mr. Wahler's prepared statement has been retained in committee
files and also is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF00/
20190522/109531/HHRG-116-IF00-Wstate-WahlerB-20190522.pdf.
\2\ The legislation has been retained in committee files and also is
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF00/20190522/109531/
BILLS-1162741ih-LIFTAmericaAct.pdf.
Letter of May 21, 2019, from Bryan Howard, Legislative Director,
U.S. Green Building Council, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden,
submitted by Mr. Pallone....................................... 155
Letter of May 2, 2019, from Hon. Cheri Bustos, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Illinois, to Mr. Pallone and Mr.
Walden, submitted by Mr. Pallone............................... 159
Letter of May 21, 2019, from Karen Kerrigan, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council,
to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, submitted by Mr. Pallone........ 162
Letter of May 20, 2019, from Allen R. Schaeffer, Executive
Director, Diesel Technology Forum, to Mr. Pallone and Mr.
Walden, submitted by Mr. Pallone............................... 165
Letter of May 21, 2019, from the National Association of
Convenience Stores, et al., to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden,
submitted by Mr. Pallone....................................... 170
Letter of May 21, 2019, from Georges C. Benjamin, Executive
Director, American Public Health Association, to Mr. Pallone,
submitted by Mr. Pallone....................................... 172
Statement of the Healthcare Information and Management Systems
Society, May 22, 2019, submitted by Mr. Pallone................ 174
Letter of May 21, 2019, from the Association of Public Health
Laboratories, et al., to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, submitted
by Mr. Pallone................................................. 176
Report to Congress by the Department of Energy, ``Strategic
Transformer Reserve,'' March 2017, submitted by Mr. Pallone \3\
Letter of May 22, 2019, from Tom Stroup, President, Satellite
Industry Association, to Mr. Pallone, submitted by Mr. Pallone. 178
Letter of May 22, 2019, from Jonathan Spalter, President and
Chief Executive Officer, USTelecom-The Broadband Association,
to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, submitted by Mr. Pallone........ 180
Letter of May 22, 2019, from Chet Thompson, President and Chief
Executive Officer, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers,
to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, submitted by Mr. Pallone........ 182
Letter of May 22, 2019, from Cynthia Joyce, Executive Director,
MQ Foundation, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, submitted by Mr.
Pallone........................................................ 185
----------
\3\ The report has been retained in committee files and also is
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF00/20190522/109531/
HHRG-116-IF00-20190522-SD014.pdf.
LIFT AMERICA: MODERNIZING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE FUTURE
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2019
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in the
John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (chairman of the committee), presiding.
Members present: Pallone, Rush, Eshoo, Engel, DeGette,
Doyle, Schakowsky, Butterfield, Matsui, Castor, Sarbanes,
McNerney, Welch, Lujan, Tonko, Clarke, Loebsack, Schrader,
Kennedy, Cardenas, Ruiz, Peters, Dingell, Veasey, Kuster,
Kelly, Barragan, McEachin, Blunt Rochester, Soto, O'Halleran,
Walden (committee ranking member), Upton, Shimkus, Burgess,
Latta, Rodgers, Guthrie, Olson, McKinley, Griffith, Bilirakis,
Johnson, Long, Bucshon, Flores, Brooks, Mullin, Hudson,
Walberg, Carter, Duncan, and Gianforte.
Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director;
Jacqueline Cohen, Chief Environment Counsel; Sharon Davis,
Chief Clerk; Adam Fischer, Policy Analyst; Jean Fruci, Energy
and Environment Policy Advisor; Waverly Gordon, Deputy Chief
Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff Director; Omar Guzman-
Toro, Policy Analyst; Caitlin Haberman, Professional Staff
Member; Alex Hoehn-Saric, Chief Counsel, Communications and
Consumer Protection; Stephen Holland, Health Counsel; Zach
Kahan, Outreach and Member Service Coordinator; Rick Kessler,
Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Josh
Krantz, Policy Analyst; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Una
Lee, Chief Health Counsel; Jerry Leverich, Senior Counsel; John
Marshall, Policy Coordinator; Dan Miller, Policy Analyst; Elysa
Montfort, Press Secretary; Meghan Mullon, Staff Assistant; Phil
Murphy, Policy Coordinator; Lisa Olson, FERC Detailee; Joe
Orlando, Staff Assistant; Alivia Roberts, Press Assistant; Tim
Robinson, Chief Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez, Policy Analyst;
Andrew Souvall, Director of Communications, Outreach, and
Member Services; Benjamin Tabor, Staff Assistant; Kimberlee
Trzeciak, Chief Health Advisor; Teresa Williams, Energy Fellow;
Tuley Wright, Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Mike
Bloomquist, Minority Staff Director; S. K. Bowen, Minority
Press Assistant; Adam Buckalew, Minority Director of Coalitions
and Deputy Chief Counsel, Health; Robin Colwell, Minority Chief
Counsel, Communications and Technology; Jerry Couri, Minority
Deputy Chief Counsel, Environment and Climate Change; Jordan
Davis, Minority Senior Advisor; Margaret Tucker Fogarty,
Minority Legislative Clerk/Press Assistant; Peter Kielty,
Minority General Counsel; Tim Kurth, Minority Deputy Chief
Counsel, Communications and Technology; Ryan Long, Minority
Deputy Staff Director; Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel,
Energy and Environment; Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief
Counsel, Energy; Brannon Rains, Minority Legislative Clerk;
Kristin Seum, Minority Counsel, Health; and Peter Spencer,
Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, Energy and
Environment.
Mr. Pallone. The Committee on Energy and Commerce will now
come to order, and I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Two of our committee's top priorities are strengthening the
economy and combating climate change. One of the best ways for
Congress to address both of these priorities now is by
rebuilding and modernizing our Nation's crumbling
infrastructure.
There is no better day for us to be having this hearing as
the President and Democratic leaders are meeting to follow up
on the President's promise to come up with the $2 trillion to
pay for, if you will, our infrastructure package.
And today, we are discussing the Leading Infrastructure for
Tomorrow's America Act, or the LIFT America Act, which was
introduced last week by all 31 committee Democrats.
This is a comprehensive bill that addresses critical
infrastructure needs across our entire committee's
jurisdiction. It will strengthen our economy for the future by
creating good-paying jobs and investing in critical clean
energy, broadband, drinking water, and healthcare
infrastructure.
So as we continue to develop a comprehensive plan to
address climate change, there are many actions we can take now
to reduce carbon pollution immediately.
LIFT America invests over $33 billion for clean energy,
including $4 billion to upgrade the electric grid to
accommodate more renewable energy and to make it more
resilient.
It includes $1.5 billion to facilitate the replacement of
leaking gas pipelines, another $4 billion for the expansion of
renewable energy use, including the installation of solar
panels in low-income and underserved communities.
We also make significant investments in energy efficiency,
helping States and communities make our public places more
energy efficient and helping homeowners weatherize their homes.
We also invest in the development of an electric-vehicle-
charging network, something that is critical to tackling the
greenhouse gas pollution coming from the transportation sector.
Collectively, all of these investments will help us take an
important step in combating the climate crisis while also
strengthening our economy, creating good-paying jobs, and
providing some much-needed relief to consumers on their energy
bills.
We also make significant investments in the expansion of
broadband internet access. For too long, we have heard stories
of the sorry state of our Nation's digital infrastructure that
is simply leaving too many communities behind.
We have heard about rural communities whose businesses
can't compete without access to the internet. We have heard
about kids living in urban broadband deserts that have no other
choice than to walk to a nearby McDonald's late after school to
access Wi-Fi just to do their homework.
And we have heard the tragic calls to 9-1-1 of Americans
that died during emergencies because when they needed help the
system couldn't find them.
So the LIFT America Act takes bold steps to ensure a
prosperous, fairer, and safer tomorrow. It provides $40 billion
to fund connections to the internet for at least 98 percent of
the country and $12 billion to upgrade our frail 9-1-1
infrastructure.
And the LIFT America Act also makes critical investments in
protecting human health and our environment. We invest more
than $21 billion to protect Americans' drinking water,
including $2.5 billion to establish a new grant program
allowing PFAS-affected communities to filter the toxic
chemicals out of their water supplies.
We also extend and increase authorizations for the drinking
water State Revolving Fund and other safe-water programs that
we authorized as part of the 2017 Safe Drinking Water Act.
And we also further fund the Brownfields program, which has
successfully helped communities clean up contaminated sites,
remove public health threats, and prepare the sites for
development. This is another job creator that spurs local
investment and revitalizes communities.
And finally, we address our Nation's healthcare
infrastructure. In recent years, we have heard of
vulnerabilities in the physical structures, cybersecurity, and
data system technology in healthcare facilities.
From cyberattacks in hospital data systems that threaten
patient privacy to the literal corrosion of pipes in Indian
Health Service facilities, our faltering health infrastructure
is putting the well-being of patients at risk.
So the LIFT America Act responds to these problems by
investing in core public health resources at the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and in State and local health
departments.
It also directly funds hospital infrastructure, Indian
Health Service facilities, public health labs, and behavioral
health clinics to protect or to better protect human health.
It is obvious this is a very ambitious plan. A lot is going
to depend on to what extend when the House leadership and the
Senate meet with the President and decide how it is going to be
paid for and how much and how large it will be.
But it is, I believe, what is necessary and what is
possible under the funding framework that has been outlined so
far by the President and Democratic congressional leaders. I
don't think we can wait any longer to modernize our Nation's
aging infrastructure, and I look forward to working with other
members of this committee to move this legislation forward.
And before I recognize our ranking member, I do want to say
as I think most of you know normally we have hearings at the
subcommittee level. But this bill has jurisdiction over all the
subcommittees. So that's why we decided that we would have a
full committee hearing today, because of the breadth and scope
of the legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Two of our committee's top priorities are strengthening the
economy and combating climate change. One of the best ways for
Congress to address both of these priorities now is by
rebuilding and modernizing our Nation's crumbling
infrastructure.
There is no better day for us to be having this hearing as
the President and Democratic Leaders are meeting to follow up
on the President's promise to come up with the $2 trillion to
pay for an infrastructure package.
Today, we are discussing the Leading Infrastructure for
Tomorrow's America Act, or the LIFT America Act, which was
introduced last week by all 31 committee Democrats. This is a
comprehensive bill that addresses critical infrastructure needs
across our entire committee's jurisdiction. It will strengthen
our economy for the future by creating good paying jobs and
investing in critical clean energy, broadband, drinking water
and healthcare infrastructure.
As we continue to develop a comprehensive plan to address
climate change, there are many actions we can take now to
reduce carbon pollution immediately.
LIFT America invests over $33 billion for clean energy--
including $4 billion to upgrade the electric grid to
accommodate more renewable energy and to make it more
resilient. It includes $1.5 billion to facilitate the
replacement of leaking gas pipelines. It includes another $4
billion for the expansion of renewable energy use, including
the installation of solar panels in low-income and underserved
communities. We also make significant investments in energy
efficiency--helping States and communities make our public
places more energy efficient, and helping homeowners weatherize
their homes.
We also invest in the development of an electric vehicle
charging network--something that is critical to tackling the
greenhouse gas pollution coming from the transportation sector.
Collectively, all of these investments will help us take an
important step in combating the climate crisis, while also
strengthening our economy, creating good-paying jobs and
providing some much-needed relief to consumers on their energy
bills.
We also make significant investments in the expansion of
broadband internet access. For too long, we've heard stories of
the sorry state of our Nation's digital infrastructure that is
simply leaving too many communities behind. We've heard about
rural communities whose businesses can't compete without access
to the internet. We've heard about kids living in urban
broadband deserts that have no other choice than to walk to a
nearby McDonalds late on a school night to access Wi-Fi just to
do their homework. And we've heard the tragic calls to 9-1-1 of
Americans that died during emergencies--because when they
needed help, the system couldn't find them.
The LIFT America Act takes bold steps to ensure a
prosperous, fairer and safer tomorrow. It provides $40 billion
to fund connections to the internet for at least 98 percent of
the country, and $12 billion to upgrade our frail 9-1-1
infrastructure.
he LIFT America Act also makes critical investments in
protecting human health and our environment.
We invest more than $21 billion to protect Americans'
drinking water, including $2.5 billion to establish a new grant
program allowing PFAS-affected communities to filter the toxic
chemicals out of their water supplies. We also extend and
increase authorizations for the drinking water State Revolving
Fund (SRF) and other safe water programs that we authorized as
part of the 2017 Safe Drinking Water Act.
We also further fund the Brownfields program, which has
successfully helped communities clean up contaminated sites,
remove public health threats and prepare the sites for
development. This is another job creator that spurs local
investment and revitalizes communities.
Finally, we address our Nation's healthcare infrastructure.
In recent years, we've heard of vulnerabilities in the physical
structures, cybersecurity and data system technology in
healthcare facilities. From cyberattacks in hospital data
systems that threaten patient privacy to the literal corrosion
of pipes in Indian Health Service facilities, our faltering
health infrastructure is putting the wellbeing of patients at
risk.
The LIFT America Act responds to these problems by
investing in core public health resources at the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and in State and local health
departments. It also directly funds hospital infrastructure,
Indian Health Service facilities, public health labs and
behavioral health clinics to better protect human health.
This is an ambitious plan, but it is what is necessary and
what is possible under the funding framework outlined by the
President and Democratic congressional leaders. We cannot wait
any longer to modernize our Nation's aging infrastructure, and
I look forward to working with every member of this committee
to move this legislation forward.
Thank you.
Mr. Pallone. So now I'll recognize our ranking member for
his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I assumed because
it was your bill we were doing this in full, but just saying
you get to do that as chairman. I kind of remember, sort of.
I am encouraged that members from both sides of the aisle
as well as President Trump are taking serious interest in what
should be a shared priority for all of us, and that's
rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure. And I think we can all
agree Republicans and Democrats should be able to come together
and work in good faith to do this and make America stronger and
better.
Mr. Chairman, as you know and as members of this committee
know, infrastructure means a lot of things and more than just
roads and bridges, which are also important. Last Congress our
committee worked together to do I think some pretty significant
work on infrastructure improvement in America.
We made some great strides to close the digital divide by
expanding broadband infrastructure, directing Federal resources
to target communities that are currently unserved, and trying
to streamline the very complex costly Federal regulations in
order to spur broadband deployment and innovation and have the
private sector do a lot of that investment.
We were instrumental in ensuring the America's Water
Infrastructure Act was signed into law. This package cut
bureaucratic red tape and reauthorized the Safe Drinking Water
Act for the first time in more than 20 years--more than 20
years since that had been done.
We did it in a bipartisan way. We provided new tools and
resources that State and local governments need to ensure the
public has access to clean and safe drinking water.
It also promoted hydropower development, which creates
clean energy jobs here at home and provides consumers with low-
cost, emissions-free electricity, and I think that was really
an important accomplishment in a bipartisan way on our
committee.
We also reauthorized the EPA's Brownfields program. This
program allows EPA, the States, and local governments to work
together to redevelop industrial or commercial facilities,
create jobs, and provide for local economic development.
As I recall from our work there, Federal taxpayers get a 16
to 1 rate of return when these Brownfield sites are cleaned up
and put into productive use.
And we worked together to explore solutions to expand,
improve, and modernize our energy infrastructure so we can
deliver energy to consumers more safely, reliably, and cost
effectively.
I always want to put consumers first in this equation.
The legislation under consideration today addresses many of
these same policies, and that is good because there is more
work to do. But just authorizing more money to spend may not
necessarily achieve what I believe are shared infrastructure
goals.
I think back to 2009, when the stimulus program was
advertised that it would create ``shovel-ready projects.''
Unfortunately, many of the jobs that were promised never
materialized, and billions of taxpayer dollars went into what
we later learned were pretty wasteful or duplicative projects
because of the speed with which the money had to go out the
door.
The 2009 stimulus bill put the cart before the horse when
it came to spending on broadband deployment without adequate
mapping, a subject we are still concerned about in this
committee in a bipartisan way, and they didn't know where the
unserved or underserved areas were. But the money had to be out
the door and spent before the mapping was to be completed.
I offered an amendment at the time to correct that reverse
problem, but it was, unfortunately, rejected. Instead, we
didn't get the maps until after the money was already out the
door. Seems kind of backwards.
While I am not trying to relitigate the past, these
examples underscore the need to be prudent in how we structure
and allocate infrastructure investment, and we must ensure that
taxpayer dollars are used wisely and we must continually
revisit and reevaluate Federal programs and regulations to
ensure our goals are being met.
The LIFT America Act designates new investments in some
prudent programs indeed. But I think there are other things
that should be looked at as well, such as the immediate need to
streamline permitting and reduce regulatory burdens for
infrastructure projects, action that if taken would yield
immediate results.
I look at what ratepayers are having to pay, or they can't
even get access to natural gas in the New England area because
of issues over pipelines.
We should see that infrastructure get built. The promises
of modern energy infrastructure have been held back by what
some might call Washington's command-and-control regulatory
regime, and I think we need to recognize that innovation and
technology development and market-driven efficiencies ensure
economic growth, spur job creation, lower energy costs for
consumers, and make a positive impact addressing climate change
risks.
So the LIFT America Act also calls for our shared goal of
expanding broadband deployment. But we do need to address this
mapping issue, and I think there is bipartisan agreement on
that, and the need for better program coordination.
The current lack of coordination and adequate mapping has
led to rampant overbuilding in existing programs. We also know
the private sector is looking to build out. This commitment by
T-Mobile and others as part of their merger to reach 99 percent
of America and cover it with high-speed broadband is really
remarkable, and they face a $5 billion penalty if they don't
deliver if the merger goes through. To me, that is what we want
to incent--private sector doing this.
So I appreciate the bills before us and I appreciate the
inclusion of Next Generation 9-1-1, among other things, and
look forward to working with you and our colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to achieve our mutual goals.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing.
I am encouraged that members from both sides of the aisle,
as well as President Trump, are taking serious interest in what
should be a shared priority for us all: rebuilding our Nation's
infrastructure. I think we can all agree that Republicans and
Democrats should be able to come together and work in good
faith to build a stronger America.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, and as the members of this
committee know, infrastructure means more than roads and
bridges. Last Congress, the Energy and Commerce Committee did
significant work on infrastructure.
We made great strides to close the digital divide by
expanding broadband infrastructure, directing Federal resources
to target the communities that are currently unserved, and
streamlining the complex, costly Federal regulations in order
to spur broadband deployment and innovation.
We were instrumental in ensuring the America's Water
Infrastructure Act was signed into law. This package cut
bureaucratic red tape and reauthorized the Safe Drinking Water
Act for the first time in more than two decades, providing the
tools and resources that State and local governments need to
ensure the public has access to clean, safe drinking water. It
also promoted hydropower development, which creates clean
energy jobs here at home and provides consumers with low-cost,
emissions-free electricity.
We also reauthorized the EPA's Brownfields program, which
allows EPA, States, and local governments to work together to
redevelop industrial or commercial facilities, create jobs, and
provide for local economic development.
And we worked together to explore solutions to expand,
improve, and modernize our energy infrastructure so that we can
deliver energy to consumers more safely, reliably, and cost-
effectively.
The legislation under consideration today revisits many of
these same policies. But just spending more money may not
necessarily achieve what I believe to be our shared
infrastructure goals.
The 2009 stimulus program was advertised that it would
create ``shovel ready'' projects, but many of the jobs that
were promised never materialized, and billions of taxpayer
dollars went towards wasteful and duplicative projects.
The 2009 stimulus bill put the cart before the horse when
it came to spending on broadband deployment without adequate
mapping to know exactly what parts of the country needed the
most help. I offered an amendment at the time to correct this
concern, but it was rejected. Instead, we didn't get the maps
until after the money was allocated.
While I am not trying to relitigate the past, these
examples underscore the need to be prudent in how we structure
and allocate infrastructure investment.
We must ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used wisely
and we must continually revisit and reevaluate Federal programs
and regulations to ensure goals are being met.
The LIFT America Act designates new investments in some
proven programs, but neglects to address some of these
concerns.
Such as the immediate need to streamline permitting and
reduce regulatory burdens for infrastructure projects. Action
that, if taken, would yield immediate results--we would see
infrastructure actually getting built!
The promises of modernized energy infrastructure have been
held back by Washington's command and control regulatory
regime. We should recognize that innovation, technological
development, and market-driven efficiencies ensure economic
growth, spur job creation, lower energy costs for consumers,
and make a positive impact addressing climate change risks.
The LIFT America Act also calls for our shared goal of
expanding broadband deployment, but we need to address mapping
and the need for better program coordination. The current lack
of coordination and adequate mapping has led to rampant
overbuilding in existing programs.
I appreciate that the bill adopts our approach to conduct
reverse auctions. I also appreciate the inclusion of Next
Generation 9-1-1 and hope that effort can be worked on
simultaneously with the broader infrastructure debate.
And while both sides of the aisle have supported State and
local public health department infrastructure improvements for
purposes of preparedness and response, the LIFT America Act's
public health infrastructure provisions require significant
further scrutiny. But I do believe we can and should work
together on making meaningful reforms and improvements to the
Indian Health Service.
I do have questions about how my colleagues intend to pay
for the spending contained in this bill and look forward to
working with them as that part of the proposal is developed.
I look forward to today's discussion and thank you again
for holding today's hearing. I yield back.
Mr. Walden. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, and I--and, obviously, we would
like to, as always, report out at some point. You know, this is
the beginning of the process, obviously, a bill that's
bipartisan and working with the Republicans and with the
President.
So the way it works--those are the opening statements. But
if Members want to submit written opening statements, they will
be made part of the record. And we are now going to proceed to
our panel.
And I want to introduce our witnesses. First, on my left, I
am very proud that I have the Honorable Brian Wahler, who is
mayor of Piscataway Township in my district. But Brian isn't
just here because he's a mayor in my district. He's been very
active with the National Conference of Mayors in pushing for a
number of infrastructure initiatives.
When we had the legislative hearing on the energy block
grant, that was something that he pushed but also the National
Conference of Mayors pushed as well. So thank you for being
here, Brian. I appreciate you being here.
And then we have--no stranger to this committee--Ms. Mignon
Clyburn, who is now a principal with MLC Strategies, but of
course we knew her for many years as one of the FCC
Commissioners.
And then we have Mr. John Auerbach, who is president and
CEO of the Trust for America's Health; Ms. Jessica Eckdish,
legislative director for the BlueGreen Alliance; Mr. Daniel
Lyons, visiting fellow from the American Enterprise Institute;
and Mr. Christopher Guith--I hope I got that right--who is
acting president for the Global Energy Institute with the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce.
And I want to thank all of you for being here today. We
look forward to your testimony. The way it works is, I will
recognize each of you for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
Let me just mention about the lighting system in front of--
talk about energy, right. In front of you is a series of
lights, and the light will initially be green at the start of
your opening statement.
The light will then turn yellow when you have 1 minute
remaining, and then you should try to wrap up your testimony at
that point, and then the light turns red when your time
expires.
So we are going to go from left to right and start with
Mayor Wahler. Thank you, Mayor.
STATEMENTS OF BRIAN WAHLER, MAYOR, PISCATAWAY, NEW JERSEY, ON
BEHALF OF THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS; MIGNON L. CLYBURN,
FORMER ACTING CHAIRWOMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;
JESSICA ECKDISH, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, BLUEGREEN ALLIANCE;
DANIEL LYONS, VISITING FELLOW, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE,
AND PROFESSOR, BOSTON COLLEGE LAW SCHOOL; CHRISTOPHER GUITH,
ACTING PRESIDENT, GLOBAL ENERGY INSTITUTE, U.S. CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE; AND JOHN AUERBACH, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, TRUST FOR AMERICA'S HEALTH
STATEMENT OF BRIAN WAHLER
Mr. Wahler. Good morning.
Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Walden, and members of the
committee, I want to thank you for the invitation today to
discuss H.R. 2741, Leading Infrastructure for Tomorrow's
America--the LIFT Act.
My name is Brian Wahler, the mayor of Piscataway Township
in New Jersey, and I am testifying on behalf of the United
States Conference of Mayors in support of this bill.
Infrastructure is inherently local, and this is where
infrastructure improvements are most needed. Local governments
have outperformed the Federal and State governments in growing
new revenue for many of our infrastructure needs.
But we need Federal Government to do its part. The LIFT Act
will do just that. The bill addresses many priorities for the
Nation's communities, including additional allocations for safe
drinking water, Brownfields programs. But for today I just want
to focus on energy components of this bill.
Cities must be an integral part of the Nation's energy
strategy because cities drive the Nation's economy engine. An
IHS study estimated that metro economies in 2017 were home to
91 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product, 92 percent
of the wage income, and 88 percent of the Nation's jobs.
Our metro economies and businesses within our communities
generate tax revenues that you appropriate. These economic
factors suggest that any national strategy to address energy
needs, climate change, and reduce pollution must include
communities both big and small that comprise our metro areas.
Local governments recognize the value in energy demand
management as possible by weatherization and smart building
technologies. Weatherization programs have proven reliable over
time, and now smart building controls have potential effect for
reductions of energy use and increased cost savings.
Solar installation for low-income and underserved
communities target an economic group that struggles to afford
basic utilities. This program will help reduce energy costs for
low-income households.
We also support the clean distribution energy systems
provision that will promote energy diversity and resiliency by
creating energy systems that will not totally rely on central
transmission lines and traditional vulnerabilities.
The conference particularly recommends the committee for
including reauthorization of the EECBG program, which is a top
priority of the Nation's mayors and local governments.
EECB focuses on energy infrastructure investment at the
local level and will help promote energy independence,
reliability, efficiencies with the goal to achieve clean
energy, clean air, and consumer savings.
Recipients of the EEC funds are required to develop
comprehensive energy plans for their community, and with more
than a dozen eligible applications for grant money, this is
enough flexibility to meet many community needs.
When the program was previously funded, many communities
leveraged their resources to add additionals to the grant
moneys, and this was a positive local regional multiplier
effect.
An Oak Ridge Laboratories report commended the program as
one of the most successful programs in bringing energy
efficiency and conservation to the communities.
EEC is the single most important way to kick start local
investment, because the greatest impediment to infrastructure
investment is finding the necessary capital.
In my own city we used our EEC money to put solar panels on
our public works department. This solar array produced more
than 1.5 million kilowatt hours, replacing fossil fuels and
reducing air pollutants.
Last year we signed a contract with Great Eastern Energy.
Now 20 percent of our energy that we use for municipal purposes
comes from renewable sources.
This is projected to save more than 4.3 million kilowatts
of fossil fuels-created electricity over 2 years. We now
require many new developments within our community to have
electric vehicle plug-in charging stations in their parking
areas, which also includes government facilities where we are
building a new community center.
By authorizing and funding this program, you will jump
start or enhance over a thousand communities nationwide to do
energy efficiency, conservation, clean energy projects.
Simply put, the Federal Government does not have access to
diverse building and fleet sectors as local communities do. We
need a strong Federal partnership for H.R. 2741. It provides a
practical framework to move forward.
I want to thank you, Chairman Pallone, and the committee
for inviting me to testify today. We are at a critical juncture
in areas of infrastructure, climate change, and I strongly urge
on behalf of the Nation's mayors that the committee and this
Congress pass a fully funded and much-needed legislation.
Thank you.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mr. Wahler's prepared statement has been retained in committee
files and also is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF00/
20190522/109531/HHRG-116-IF00-Wstate-WahlerB-20190522.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for being
here.
And next I will recognize Ms. Clyburn for 5 minutes, and
thank you also for being here.
STATEMENT OF MIGNON L. CLYBURN
Ms. Clyburn. Thank you.
Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Walden, members of the
committee, thank you for inviting me here to testify this
morning.
For almost 9 years I had the privilege of serving on the
Federal Communications Commission. During my tenure, I was
afforded the opportunity to travel across this great Nation and
around the world, where I witnessed firsthand the
transformative power of broadband.
Unfortunately, too many Americans, including those in rural
communities, remain unable to harness the incredible power of
connectivity.
Since the FCC released its national broadband plan almost
10 years ago, it has been focused on closing the broadband
availability gap. We still have a long way to go, which is why
I ask that you go big and be bold.
The LIFT America Act contemplates a $40 billion infusion of
capital for broadband infrastructure, almost 10 times the
annual amount of CAF funding currently available.
While that is, indeed, a significant number, what is clear
is that this level of investment is necessary. Based on my past
experience as a regulator, allow me to offer a few principles
for your consideration.
The act should prioritize capital expenditures for
communities currently without broadband-capable infrastructure.
By this I mean those areas in both rural and urban America that
don't even have 10/1 speed.
Determinations of where support is needed to deploy
broadband should be based on reliable and verifiable coverage
maps. Everyone is frustrated because more needs to be done to
improve the FCC maps.
The current maps should not be exclusively used for any
proceeding, including for funding purposes at this time. What
the FCC needs to do is immediately act on its pending
proceeding to update Form 477 and produce a reliable map so
that we can know precisely where the areas are that don't have
10/1 coverage.
It is also very important that this investment is viewed
through a once-only lens, and what I mean by that is taxpayers
should be asked to fund broadband infrastructure only one time
and that infrastructure should be robust and capable of serving
their communities long into the future.
The U.S. lags behind European and Asian countries that are
planning to deliver high-speed broadband infrastructure that
can be upgraded cost effectively. Online demand is increasing,
which means we need robust networks to handle that demand.
Since we are going big and bold with LIFT, Congress should
invest the money in infrastructure that will deliver high-speed
broadband of at least 1 gig symmetrical service. This should
put our country on par with others and catch us up to those who
are ahead.
The bill can remain competitively and technologically
neutral, but it must be refined to give projects that can
deliver 1 gig service a bidding preference.
Similarly, where 1 gig can be upgraded to deliver even
higher speeds quickly and at a lower cost, the bill should
include that as a positive in the waiting process.
As Commissioner O'Rielly has said, we must coordinate all
of the government broadband funding mechanisms to avoid
duplication, which will ensure that we will get as much bang
from our limited bucks as possible.
Accordingly, new funding provided by LIFT should be
restricted to those unserved areas that aren't receiving funds
from other programs. Moreover, as Chairman Pai has discussed,
reverse auctions have delivered incredible benefits and have
saved taxpayer money.
Reverse auctions should be embraced. Simply speaking, they
are more efficient and more effective.
I would like to commend you, Chairman Pallone, and all who
have been working on LIFT for your leadership in securing a
brighter economic future for those Americans whose dreams have
yet to be realized.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning, and
I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Clyburn follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Ms. Clyburn. Thank you for being
here today and for all you did at the FCC.
So next we have Ms. Eckdish. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF JESSICA ECKDISH
Ms. Eckdish. Good morning.
Thank you, Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Walden, and
members of the committee. My name is Jessica Eckdish. I am the
legislative director of the BlueGreen Alliance.
On behalf of my organization, our partners, and the
millions of members and supporters they represent, I want to
thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
The BlueGreen Alliance unites America's largest labor
unions and most influential environmental organizations around
the belief that we don't have to choose between a good job and
a clean environment. We can and must have both.
Investing in repairing and modernizing our Nation's
infrastructure is a clear example of this principle. If done
right, a Federal infrastructure package will boost our economy
and create millions of jobs while simultaneously reducing
pollution, combating climate change, and strengthening our
communities.
The LIFT America Act is a key step in this direction.
Failing infrastructure is a critical threat to our communities,
from crumbling bridges and contaminated drinking water to
inefficient and unhealthy schools, power outages, and dangerous
and leaky gas distribution pipes under our cities.
These problems are only getting worse. The historic 2017
hurricane season laid waste to Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, Texas, and Florida, plunging millions of Americans
into darkness and further aggravating an already desperate need
for safe water.
As the world's climate continues to change, the
deteriorating state of our infrastructure becomes a vicious
circle. As our systems crumble and become more inefficient, the
excess pollution exacerbates climate change, and as our climate
changes, more extreme weather tests our already strained
infrastructure systems, endangering the health and safety of
our communities.
BlueGreen Alliance research has found that investing an
estimated $2.2 trillion in a variety of infrastructure sectors
to improve them from a D-plus grade to a B grade has the
potential to support or create an additional 14.5 million job-
years across the U.S. economy, add $1.66 trillion to GDP over
10 years, and reduce greenhouse gas pollution versus a
business-as-usual approach.
Last week we released a set of 14 infrastructure policy
priorities in key sectors including energy transmission,
distribution, and storage, transportation, water, schools, and
other buildings, broadband, natural infrastructure, climate
resilience, and manufacturing.
Making these smart investments has the potential to deliver
millions of good jobs, reduce climate and toxic pollution, and
make our communities more resilient, but only if we do this the
right way.
In order to maximize these benefits for communities, the
environment, and workers, there are five principles that any
legislation must follow.
First, any infrastructure package must create quality
family-sustaining jobs. This means ensuring that all projects
are subject to Buy America and Davis-Bacon standards that
bolster American manufacturing and ensure that workers are paid
a prevailing wage.
It means utilizing project labor agreements, community
benefit agreements, and other provisions that improve training,
working conditions, and project benefits, and it means
maintaining and growing jobs in the public sector to support
all of this work as well as respecting collective bargaining
agreements and workers' organizing rights.
Second, an infrastructure package must deliver climate
benefits and reduce pollution, a range of investments from
natural infrastructure and grid modernization to repairing and
replacing aging gas distribution pipes, that all deliver
significant greenhouse gas emission and other pollutant
reductions.
Third, this package must make our communities more
resilient. This means driving forward-looking planning and
investments that build for the future, not the past, and that
make our infrastructure systems and communities more resilient
to the impacts of climate change. This must include
prioritizing natural infrastructure solutions.
Fourth, an infrastructure package must maximize benefits to
workers in communities, especially those most in need. Our
infrastructure investments must provide economic opportunities
for low-income communities, communities of color, women, and
local workers across the country.
Finally, any infrastructure package must begin with a
robust public investment and must tackle the broad array of our
infrastructure needs.
The LIFT America Act embodies these five principles and
takes a significant step towards addressing our country's
infrastructure challenge. We are particularly pleased to see
efforts included in the bill to address drinking water
infrastructure, electric grid resiliency and modernization,
school energy efficiency, methane emissions from natural gas
distribution lines, and broadband access.
While the bill also includes necessary conditions to ensure
domestic content, prevailing wage, and other benefits for
workers and communities, there are opportunities to expand
these provisions across the bill.
Preparing America's infrastructure systems is both urgently
needed and an enormous opportunity. We look forward to working
with this committee as this bill moves forward to ensure the
strongest possible outcome for workers and our environment.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Eckdish follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pallone. Thank you so much.
I next recognize for 5 minutes Professor--is it Professor?
Professor Lyons, yes.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL A. LYONS
Mr. Lyons. Thank you.
Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Walden, and members of the
committee, thank you for allowing me to appear before you
today.
My name is Daniel Lyons. I am a visiting fellow at the
American Enterprise Institute, and I am a professor at Boston
College Law School, where I study telecommunications and
internet policy.
My remarks are focussed on the LIFT America Act's broadband
provisions. According to the FCC's latest estimates,
approximately 20 million Americans lack access to high-speed
fixed broadband networks.
That means a little more than 1 in 20 Americans are sitting
on the wrong side of the digital divide solely because of where
they live.
The LIFT America Act addresses this problem by allocating
$40 billion to subsidize broadband network construction in
unserved areas.
The program reflects a key recommendation of the FCC's
national broadband plan that government assistance should take
the form of one-time construction aid rather than the ongoing
carrier subsidies that mark the telephone era high-cost fund.
The act adopts many of the best practices developed at the
FCC while experimenting with similar subsidies through the
Connect America Fund. Perhaps most significantly, it uses a
reverse auction mechanism to distribute funds.
This helps assure that taxpayers will get the biggest bang
for their buck by awarding funds to projects that will connect
an area at the lowest expense, and it also mandates that funds
be distributed on a technology-neutral basis.
This is important both because unserved areas are
geographically diverse and also because innovations like 5G
networking and low Earth orbit satellites could bring
disruptive new forms of competition to broadband markets.
Studies show that wired deployment typically plateaus at
about 70 percent of the country. So making room for disruptive
new technologies can help us reach that last 30 percent more
efficiently, the way that satellite companies helped fill in
the rural gaps in the pay television market.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has explained that, with the Connect
America fund, the reverse auction structure and the technology-
neutral limitation or mandate sparked competition that reduced
their estimated subsidy costs by 70 percent. Areas they
expected to wire for $5 billion they instead are wiring for
$1.5 billion.
And I also appreciate that the act sets aside one-quarter
of its funds to be administered directly by States. Back when I
was applying for professor positions, my job talk focused on
the importance of State regulators, and it turns out that for
law professors, telecommunications
ralism isn't a super-sexy topic like constitutional rights.
So I am actually really glad to see that you are taking it
seriously here on the Hill.
State regulators have local knowledge, and they are often
in a much better position than their Federal counterparts to
know where the gaps in coverage are in particular locations and
how to best go about fixing them.
There are, I think, a few places where I would push back on
the draft bill. The first is a requirement that the State funds
be allocated in direct proportion to the population of each
State.
This, I think, could steer funding in suboptimal ways,
because total population is not a good proxy for broadband
need. Broadband service is most economically delivered in
population-dense areas where there are more customers per
square mile, and so that means that unserved areas of the
country that are targeted by the act are more likely to skew
rural.
Allocating dollars based on State population could have the
unintended consequence of favoring rural areas in States that
also happen to have a big city over those States that don't
have a big city, even though the existence of a city probably
doesn't tell us much about the State's funding need.
It would be better, I think, to allocate funds on the basis
of each State's unserved population, which I think better
directs the money toward those who the act is designed to
benefit.
I think this is especially problematic when coupled with
the act's inclusion of funds to aid underserved areas. Unlike
unserved areas, where internet access is lacking, underserved
has an existing provider.
So subsidies to underserved areas effectively subsidize a
new company to come in and challenge an existing broadband
provider. In a sense, this would punish companies that invested
private dollars to serve a challenging area by making it harder
for them to compete.
And although the act says that States can only fund
underserved areas if all of the unserved areas in the State are
addressed, the allocation of funds on the basis of population
could lead to some States quickly filling their unserved areas
and then pouring money into underserved areas, while some other
States with smaller populations are still struggling to connect
anybody at all.
And I think this one related issue is the act's minimum
service standards. The act requires recipients to provide 100
megabits download service. I think before picking a benchmark,
it is helpful for the committee to think about how much service
the average consumer needs, because otherwise you risk
overinvesting in specific projects at the cost of completing
fewer projects.
I previously have proposed that policymakers adopt an
activity-based approach: Identify the core activities that are
essential to participating in online society and then figure
out how much speed you need in order to be able to do those
things.
And finally, I think it is important to remember that
availability is only one driver of the digital divide. Issues
like affordability and digital literacy also become a really
important part in the need to close the digital divide and make
sure we have universal connectivity.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lyons follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Professor.
Next we have Mr. Guith. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER GUITH
Mr. Guith. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman Pallone,
Ranking Member Walden, and members of the committee.
The Chamber appreciates the opportunity to testify today on
the importance of bolstering the Nation's clean energy and
water infrastructure.
America's energy infrastructure provides a complex system
of vital arteries, making real-time deliveries of electricity,
natural gas, and liquid fuels and products to every corner of
the country to satisfy consumer demand.
With more than 2.7 million miles of pipeline and 7 million
miles of electric lines, the United States has the largest,
most advanced, and most interconnected energy system in the
world.
With some limited exceptions, America's energy
infrastructure has been privately funded and privately built
and financed. It serves as an economic engine that literally
fuels and powers the entire economy from coast to coast.
As the U.S. energy landscape continues to change, the need
to site, permit, and build new energy infrastructure
predictably and transparently is increasingly important to
capture the economic and environmental benefits provided by
American innovation.
Unfortunately, the permitting process is neither, which
discourages investment and often delays or prevents new energy
infrastructure from being built, robbing the country of the
economic environmental benefits.
As Congress considers infrastructure legislation, it is
imperative that permit streamlining be included as part of it.
As general principles within infrastructure, the Chamber
believes the time has come to enact a Federal infrastructure
modernization plan to provide every American a 21st century
system. We urge elected officials in Washington to take charge
and tackle the problem with both adequate funding and a long-
term plan. This morning, an op-ed written by Chamber president
Tom Donohue and AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka in the
Washington Post notes that ``Rebuilding and modernizing our
Nation's crumbling infrastructure will benefit every business,
every worker and every family in the United States.''
Last year, the Chamber laid out four pillars the
administration and Congress should consider, including an
infrastructure modernization debate, and today I am going to
focus on just one--streamlining the permitting process.
There is a growing consensus that the Federal permitting
regime is moribund and inefficient, discouraging capital
investments in new and upgraded infrastructure the market is
demanding.
This reduces the economic security and environmental
benefits Americans could realize from these new investments.
Ignoring permitting reform would prolong an inadequate,
inefficient, and often counterproductive system of bureaucratic
review that provides decreasingly less certainty to project
sponsors and investors and ultimately defeats the goal of these
legislative efforts to build infrastructure.
Any infrastructure proposal that fails to reform the
permitting system risks losing Chamber support. As our
president, Tom Donohue, has said, it should not take longer to
approve a project than build it.
The Chamber believes that all Federal infrastructure
approvals should be completed within 2 years and shepherded by
a single lead agency. The administration has implemented the
one Federal decision and a 2-year review via Executive order,
and now it is up to Congress to codify these provisions so that
we have long-term certainty that projects can be completed in a
timely and efficient manner.
Additionally, we need Congress's continued commitment to
the reforms it created in FAST-41. The Permitting Dashboard and
Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council created by
FAST-41 have already paid dividends for dozens of clean energy
infrastructure projects, ranging from wind to solar to
hydroelectric to natural gas, in addition to flood mitigation
and coastal restoration.
In total, more than half of the projects tracked on the
PFISC Dashboard are clean energy projects, and passage of FAST-
41 represented a major bipartisan accomplishment, garnering
support from both environmental organizations and the business
community.
Congress should permanently reauthorize FAST-41 in any
infrastructure passage.
And now turning to the LIFT Act. The Chamber appreciates
the introduction of the LIFT America Act and recognizes
Chairman Pallone and members of this committee for their
leadership and efforts to deliver what we believe could be
historic legislation.
While Chamber members have significant interest in this
entire legislative effort, I have focused testimony on clean
energy infrastructure and drinking water infrastructure.
While we continue to analyze this legislation, there are
many parts of it that could benefit the U.S. economy and foster
cleaner lower-emitting technologies.
Specifically, we support reauthorization of the diesel
emissions reduction program and the weatherization assistance
program as well as authorized increases in water infrastructure
investments and brownfields redevelopment.
The creation of the assistance for community water systems
affected by PFAS is also welcome. And finally, on the general
topic of funding, we would be concerned if moneys appropriated
for these activities come at the expense of existing were
crucial to fostering innovation through the Federal complex.
In general, however, the Chamber is supportive of many of
the authorized and reauthorized programs created in the LIFT
Act, and as we continue our analysis and member consultation,
we commit to working with the committee to ensure that this
legislation provides the greatest improvements in energy
infrastructure while minimizing unintended consequences.
In conclusion, the U.S. is in the midst of a historic
energy shift, both from scarcity to abundance but also to
lower-emitting and environmentally sustainable. The ability to
build new infrastructure and facilities harnessing this
innovation is crucial to bring economic and environmental
benefits to America.
To bring these technologies and innovation to bear,
Congress must make the Federal permitting process more
transparent and predictable. Only when that happens will the
Nation benefit from increased investment in traditional surface
infrastructure but also the energy infrastructure that will
help facilitate continued economic growth and a cleaner future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guith follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Guith.
And then finally we have Mr. Auerbach recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN AUERBACH
Mr. Auerbach. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
and members of the committee.
I am John Auerbach, the president and CEO of Trust for
America's Health. We are an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit
public health policy research and advocacy organization, and we
are grateful that the LIFT America Act includes the needs of
public health and healthcare in the consideration of the
Nation's essential infrastructure.
Such an investment will literally save lives. The Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention as well as State, local,
Tribal, and Territorial health departments and community
partners need a well-functioning infrastructure to prevent and
respond to major public health threats in order to protect the
American public.
That infrastructure includes the facilities and equipment
such as governmental laboratories, up-to-date data and
information systems, and a highly skilled and qualified
workforce, including those who are on the front lines when a
deadly infectious disease or a dangerous environmental hazard
needs to be contained.
Over my 30-year career, I have held senior positions in
public health as Boston's health commissioner during 9/11, as
the Massachusetts health commissioner during the H1N1 outbreak,
and at CDC during the Ebola and the Zika crises, and I have led
efforts to combat opioid addiction, the obesity crisis, and
environmental contaminants, and I have seen through the years
the importance of public health in preventing disease and
injury and saving lives during emergencies and outbreaks.
But all too often, health departments are underresourced
and understaffed, and inhibited by a crumbling infrastructure.
Public health is traditionally funded with scores of line
items, each one representing a distinct disease or condition.
But some resources are needed that extend beyond a single
health issue. That is where infrastructure funding is so
crucial.
An investment in core public health infrastructure gives
public health the foundation needed to tackle a wide range of
health issues and reduce preventable deaths.
The public health system now faces unprecedented 21st
century challenges ranging from the opioid epidemic to extreme
weather to emerging infectious diseases, and is doing so in
many cases with 20th century infrastructure.
My organization released a report last month, ``The Impact
of Chronic Underfunding on America's Public Health System,''
where we found that outdated and underfunded resources are
preventing the public health system from adequately tackling
leading health threats and contributing to the startling fact
that the U.S. life expectancy rate has declined for the third
year in a row.
Let me offer some examples. As public health departments
are on the ground working across sectors to prevent and respond
to health threats such as food contaminated with salmonella,
Zika, Ebola, and now measles, there are many times when there
are dangerous delays in responding due to the weakness of the
public health infrastructure.
During the Zika outbreak, health departments in most States
were not able to conduct the confirmatory laboratory tests, so
that samples would have to be flown by commercial airlines to
the CDC in Atlanta.
And even CDC lacked the resources to respond immediately to
the volume of requests. As a local and State health
commissioner, I sometimes waited for days for a crucial test
result due to a lack of capacity.
Technology is now constantly improving and offering state-
of-the-art potential approaches such as advanced molecular
detection. But without continued investment, we can't fully
access these breakthroughs.
In addition, the success of public health relies upon
accurate and timely data. But it is shocking to continue to
hear stories of reports of diseases that are filled out by
hand--those reports are filled out by hand by doctors and faxed
at the point that a fax machine becomes available, rather than
real-time reporting through the internet.
There are parts of the country that are still communicating
such time-sensitive information the way we did a half-century
ago. Just 2 days ago I met with local health officials from
coast to coast, and I heard horror stories of the lack of
adequate health information technology.
Rural public health departments without regular internet
access, urban health departments that weren't receiving
essential information from electronic medical records of nearby
hospitals, missed opportunities to inform the public with
social media, which is the key way we receive information now,
and health department after health department highlighted the
need for highly skilled personnel to oversee these systems.
This committee has worked tirelessly on the Pandemic and
All-Hazards Preparedness Act, which aims to strengthen capacity
to find health risks before they grow out of control.
Yet, this goal remains aspirational without a major
investment in the public health infrastructure.
Thank you for including public health and healthcare in the
LIFT America Act. Doing so is well worth it in terms of lives
saved, illnesses and injuries and expensive healthcare costs
that are averted.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Auerbach follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Auerbach, and thank all of our
witnesses. That concludes our openings, and now we are going to
move to Member questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to
ask questions of our witnesses, and I will start by recognizing
myself for 5 minutes.
There are two vitally important goals that we want to
accomplish with the LIFT America Act. One is to rebuild and
modernize our infrastructure to sustain a high standard of
living for Americans and a competitive, efficient economy, and
then second, to redesign and reorient our infrastructure to
deal with the climate change that we can't avoid and to prevent
further damage to the climate system, our society, and our
economy.
So I want to start with Ms. Eckdish. Are the direct and
indirect employment effects of increasing Federal support for
infrastructure projects significant and does the BlueGreen
Alliance see a linkage between infrastructure investments and
reducing greenhouse gas pollution?
I know you have touched on that in your opening, but if you
would develop it a little bit. Not too much because I have to
ask other questions.
Ms. Eckdish. Sure. Thank you, Chairman Pallone, for the
question.
Yes, we absolutely see significant employment opportunities
through infrastructure investments as well as opportunities to
address greenhouse gas emissions. As I mentioned in my
testimony, we see a nearly 15 million job creation opportunity
from investing in infrastructure from the construction side
through manufacturing of components that go into these
infrastructure systems.
We also see a significant nexus with climate benefits, both
in terms of the investments that can reduce greenhouse gas
emissions--I will give one quick example. The LIFT America Act
addresses grid modernization: ``Full implementation of a
national smart grid could reduce U.S. CO2 emissions
by 12 percent.'' That is just one example of the emissions
reductions we could see from infrastructure investments.
We also know that investing in infrastructure can help in
terms of the impacts that we know are coming and already here
from climate change, including extreme weather events, sea
level rise, storm surges.
Every dollar invested in prevention today reduce costs by
$6 in the future. So a significant return on investment and
making our communities more resilient to climate impacts.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Let me go to Mayor Wahler. Do you believe that the
infrastructure investments are one way to meet--well, let me
say this, Mayor.
Mayors and other local government officials have taken a
strong position in fighting climate change, including yourself,
and calling on the Federal Government to do more to meet the
challenge of climate change.
So, Mayor, do you believe that infrastructure investments
are one way to meet that challenge, and how will additional
Federal support for infrastructure help cities accelerate the
transition to a low-carbon economy?
Mr. Wahler. One of the advantages of this bill is it lays
out a 5-year program, and one of the things that towns and
cities and counties need to do is be able to lay out a long-
term plan.
In the past, when there was just a one-shot funding there,
that didn't allow communities to do that. There are a lot of
things that towns and cities can do.
For instance, over the last 10 years between water and
infrastructure projects within communities, towns and cities
have spent over $80 billion in funds there. So towns and cities
do have skin in the game.
We are just asking for a partnership to help along with
some long-term planning and in cases--a lot of cases that towns
and cities need seed money to leverage that public-private
partnership to accomplish those goals.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
I am going to turn now to Ms. Clyburn on the broadband.
According to a 2017 FCC study, we can build out incredibly
high-speed broadband internet access to 98 percent of the
country with the $40 billion that we have in the bill. For that
price, we are talking about in-home broadband that could
deliver gigabit speeds. To achieve that goal, we authorize $40
billion to connect the unconnected.
So in your experience, Commissioner--I will still call you
that. Once a Commissioner, always.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pallone. What will it mean for families in rural areas
or urban broadband deserts to have access to in-home high-speed
or even gig-speed internet service?
Ms. Clyburn. It will allow individuals to make a choice to
stay or to leave--that infrastructure that does not exist in
those communities is forcing the young to leave these
communities and causing brain drain in so many areas.
It would put a substantial down payment to address that. It
will allow opportunities in telehealth and telemedicine, and
remote educational opportunities that do not exist--classrooms
and schools that do not have the infrastructure at present.
This is an equalizer. This would be a great equalizer for
those areas that don't have the infrastructure to serve those
communities.
Mr. Pallone. And then, lastly, can you explain--well, in
the LIFT America Act we have critical coordination language so
that the FCC and State-administered reverse auctions don't
undermine other current and future Federal investment, and you
mentioned that language.
Could you just explain what could happen if we didn't
include the coordinate language in the bill?
Ms. Clyburn. Duplication, inefficiencies, and goals not
being met, you know, simply put. You have got a mixture of
State and Federal agencies that all mean well, but they are not
talking to each other.
So, you know, a lot of conflict and, as I mentioned,
duplication and goals that are not harmonized are really
causing a lot of inefficiencies, and this will force everyone
to speak to each other and force efficiency, and that will
allow more bang for our buck and more infrastructure being
built to where it is needed.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Commissioner.
I now recognize Mr. Walden for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
all our panelists. We appreciate your testimony today and your
guidance and counsel as we work on these issues.
I want to ask Mr. Lyons, the RAY BAUM'S Act and the
inclusion of MOBILE NOW was a big success last Congress, and it
was also a lesson that streamlining and permitting are just as
important for broadband deployment as spending money alone.
This is a multijurisdictional effort, and I believe there
is some understanding needed on how NEPA, the National
Environmental Policy Act, and the National Historic
Preservation Act impact the expedited deployment schedule in
this legislation.
If we are going to be successful, and we understandably
want to be sensitive of both the environment and to, of course,
historic properties and all, but how do we work through that
and get things like 5G built out?
Your comments?
Mr. Lyons. Thanks for the question.
I think that is absolutely right that, if your goal is to
add broadband to places where it is currently uneconomical,
there are two ways to that, right.
Adding subsidies on the one end but also lifting existing
barriers to infrastructure buildout is equally important, and
we have learned through a number of FCC initiatives that
activities that can lift the existing barriers to make it
easier to go, for example, dig one strategy----
Mr. Walden. Right. I was going to ask you----
Mr. Lyons [continuing]. Can be super helpful in making it
cheaper to deploy broadband and therefore more economical in
places where regulatory burdens may otherwise be problematic.
You are right that we don't want to ride roughshod over,
you know, environmental regulation. But we have to recognize
also that the more decision makers there are in the process,
the more veto gates there are to getting projects done.
Mr. Walden. Yes.
Mr. Lyons. And veto gates means more difficult--delays in
getting the projects completed.
Mr. Walden. Well, and I know--and I am from the Northwest,
not the Northeast--but, you know, we have this constricted flow
of, for example, natural gas. There was a building I read about
recently, had been built to hook up to natural and guess what?
They don't have access to enough natural gas, so now they are
going to use propane.
And you know all that--the blocking of the pipelines and
power lines, and I realize the public needs to have a voice in
these issues. But it comes to a point where we are using
heating oil and we are somehow, I don't know, subsidize
whatever we do with that.
The ratepayers are paying more. The environment doesn't
benefit and you have these constricted flows, and it seems to
me it does not benefit anybody other than the industry that is
out there designed to shut down any progress on energy
development.
Mr. Lyons. Agreed, and I am a--so I will preface this by
saying I am a big fan of federalism. I think State regulators
have a really important role to play.
Mr. Walden. I agree, up to a point.
Mr. Lyons. But they are focusing on what is important for
their State, right, and there are some times when what is best
for a particular State is not what is best for the economy as a
whole, right.
So, for example, hypothetically, right, you get a pipeline
that is coming down from Canada into Massachusetts. It has to
traverse New Hampshire. If New Hampshire residents aren't
benefiting from that, then they many not want, you know, to cut
through.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Lyons. If it is something that is great for the whole
but not so great--hypothetically--if it is great for the
economy as a whole but it is not--but a particular State has a
veto authority, we need to make sure that----
Mr. Walden. This is the balance we have to figure out.
Mr. Lyons [continuing]. The balancing act is being done at
the right level.
Mr. Walden. Yes. We face a lot in the West with Federal
public lands. I had a community that was trying to get three-
phase power for the first time in this tiny little town, and I
don't remember now. It took a couple of years to go through the
siting process because they, as I recall, had to put four power
poles on Bureau of Land Management land. It took a couple of
years to go through the process.
And this is the stuff--there has got to be a better way to
do this. Now, I want to flag one other issue as we deal with
the communications issues and foreign issues.
In Portland, Oregon, right now, somebody is going around
putting up stickers on lampposts saying that 5G is a hazard to
your health that look like they are official.
The New York Times has reported on what Russian television
and propaganda is doing to convince people that somehow 5G is
bad.
And I think--you can go read the New York Times story. I
mean, it is there. Meanwhile, in Russia, I am told, they are
telling everybody that it cures cancer. Here they are telling
us it is going to cause cancer.
We have got to be recognizing on 5G deployment we have to
win this race, and I think this is worthy of us taking a look
at what is going on by some of our adversaries.
I will show you the story. KGW-TV did a fact check on it.
It is, like, this is not official stuff. But we are going to
see that around the country.
We have got to win the war on 5G. We need to use our
natural resources, especially natural gas. You look at 16
gigawatts of coal that has come offline because of fuel
switching, principally. But if you can't get the natural gas
where you need it, then you are going to inhibit that growth
and that development.
So there is a lot more that we need to do. Mr. Lyons, I
certainly see a component to what we are trying to do here and
to work with the States, and I appreciate your testimony.
One question maybe for--is it Mr. ``Guth''? ``Gooth''? The
underlying question, kind of what happened to the White House--
you know, everybody got together and said, we got a $2 trillion
thing--we all agree.
How do we pay for this? How do we pay for this, $40
billion? These are authorizations. This isn't, you know----
Mr. Guith. The first principle or pillar within our
infrastructure plan was consistent with what we have been
saying for 20 years, which is raising the user fuel tax----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Guith [continuing]. Because it hasn't been touched
since the '80s and----
Mr. Walden. But you are not going to use that to pay for
these things?
Mr. Guith. Well, we will work with, certainly, Congress
expressing our positions on that. But, ultimately, as Mr.
Donohue stated this morning in the Washington Post, it is going
to take more than even just that to get to $2 trillion. I mean,
it is going to take private-sector investment, and the quickest
way to get to that is to make it more transparent and more
predictable as far as how we permit these roads, bridges, and
energy infrastructure.
Mr. Walden. Very good. All right. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Walden.
Next, we move to Ms. DeGette, recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Walden, you are exactly right about the 5G
disinformation that is in Denver, and it is everywhere. I
think, Mr. Chairman, we should have an O&I hearing on it, is my
opinion.
But what I want to talk about in my questions is the
environmental applications of this wonderful piece of
legislation, because infrastructure is not just limited to
roads and bridges.
It also has a lot of other components, and that is why I am
really happy that there is $2.7 billion in this bill for
brownfields redevelopment grants.
I have been involved in this issue back in the mists of
time since I was in the State legislature when I authored the
Colorado version of Brownfields.
It was called the Colorado State Voluntary Cleanup and
Redevelopment Program, and it is still in use to this day and
it has been used to clean up thousands of areas--old dry
cleaners and gas stations and industrial sites.
And then, of course, in 2002 this committee first
authorized the Federal Brownfields program. And in cities like
Denver we can see how important those programs are to
redevelopment in urban areas, and these funds will really allow
communities to continue with the success but also to have
economic development.
Mayor, I am wondering if you can comment very briefly on
Brownfields and how the mayors look at this towards an economic
generator.
Mr. Wahler. Thank you, Congresswoman.
It is no secret that the United States Conference of Mayors
have been very supportive of the Brownfields program. As a
matter of fact, one of my colleagues from New Jersey, Mayor
Chris Bollwage of Elizabeth, New Jersey, has testified on
numerous times here in front of this committee and testified
recently last year when the new bill was authorized and then
signed into law.
Listen, Brownfields--anytime you can clean up a property
and put it back to use, whether it is for residential or
commercial use, is a good thing in this country.
Nobody wants to be living next to Brownfields or Superfund
sites, for lack of a better word, and I think when towns have a
partnership with the Federal Government, working hand in hand
to put tax revenues back to good use and to create economic
activity out there, that is a great thing for both the
municipal governments, the county governments, and even the
State governments.
Ms. DeGette. And it is a good economic stimulator. Is that
right?
Mr. Wahler. Absolutely. You know, almost every community in
the United States has a Brownfields site.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Ms. Eckdish, I want--the bill also has $2.5 billion to
create grant programs to install solar panels within low-income
and underserved communities.
I am wondering if you can talk to me about how that impacts
jobs in those local communities, both installing and
maintaining.
Ms. Eckdish. Sure. We know that investing in clean energy
is, you know, not only a climate solution but a job creator. I
think what we would hope to see is that these new programs
include strong labor and procurement standards to make sure
that not only are we creating jobs, you know, installing these
solar panels or whether it is other wind, solar, clean energy
opportunities--that we are not only creating jobs at the
project sites themselves but that we are, A, making sure they
are good jobs with labor standards and with procurement
standards, that we are also thinking about the materials that
are going to those projects.
Ms. DeGette. And that is a continuing source of employment
for our communities. Is that right?
Ms. Eckdish. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Now, another question I wanted to ask you
about is, you know, the LIFT Act builds on the drinking water
State Revolving Fund by respecting State and local
decisionmaking.
In my community right now, we are involved in a very
difficult collaborative process with the State and actually the
EPA because they have found lead in the water in Denver,
including in the pipes that go to my house because the pipes
are so old.
So I am wondering if you can talk about why it is important
to respect the solutions for the cities and States when you are
providing the Federal funding.
Ms. Eckdish. Absolutely, and we know these communities
exist across the country and there are millions of Americans
being served by lead service lines or water systems that have
lead components, and it is a tragic situation.
The State Revolving Funds are very proven, effective
programs, and we commend the LIFT Act for recognizing that, and
this committee had done tremendous work to ensure that those
programs are effective.
And they also include strong labor and procurement
standards that make sure that the investments we are making in
our water systems also create good jobs both in the
construction and the manufacturing of those components.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Thank you so much. I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Ms. DeGette.
Next, we have Mr. Upton for 5 minutes.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would guess--I
think most of my questions are going to be directed at Mr.
Guith.
I appreciated your comments about PFAS. That is one of the
things this committee and certainly the subcommittee that Mr.
Tonko and Mr. Shimkus lead is focused on that, not only in this
Congress but also in the last one.
Michigan, we have been particularly hard hit with this. Our
Governor did a really good job of working with every community
in our State to find out what municipal water systems might be
impacted both above 10,000 users as well as under 10,000 and,
sadly, tragically, I have one in my district, and particularly
those with individual wells are still going to be drinking
bottled water for some time to come.
And we did have some cooperation between the city of
Kalamazoo and Parchment to put together a water system so that
the Parchment system now is with Kalamazoo but they were just
really lucky that it was so close.
But this legislation--the LIFT legislation--does establish
a nonregulatory Federal grant program to aid PFAS-affected
drinking water utilities, and we know it is going to be more
than just one in not only Michigan but around the country as
well.
Do you find that that is a pretty good way to address the
PFAS issues--and, again, it does fit in with the jobs and
environment situation, but it is a really critical need that
communities are going to need very much like what we saw with
lead in Clinton and other communities as well.
Mr. Guith. Absolutely. We think that because the PFAS
contamination invariably hits all 50 States and Territories
probably--all 435 House districts--there is a significant need
for remediation in addressing the contamination.
But as I noted in my testimony, the one thing we would be
concerned with is that it divert funds from existing safe
drinking water funding, and as somebody from Michigan and
having referenced the lead issue, that is something that I
would expect many up there would not want to see happen----
Mr. Upton. Yes, I think we are going to have to expand the
pool of dollars that are available, and just like, you know,
lead is bad, PFAS is a relatively new contaminant that many
people still don't know about. But it is just as harmful, as we
saw with the lead issue.
You know, as we talk about creating jobs and protecting the
environment, again, one of the issues that this committee is
going to be working on--and thanks to Mr. Rush and Pallone and,
again, bipartisan, something going back to John Dingell and
certainly Debbie Dingell now--is the pipeline safety
authorization bill, which, as you may know, expires in
September of this year.
We have been beginning hearings and to, again, work on a
bipartisan basis. Creates jobs and protects the environment. We
know that that's the safest way to transport oil and gas
through.
There are several congressional mandates that are left over
from the prior reauthorizations. They involve important
rulemakings relating to gas and liquid integrity management,
leak detection, safety valves, mapping of high consequence
areas, other important safety rules.
We are going to be working on increased funding for
infrastructure. So do you think that it is important that we
link some of that funding related to upgraded safety practices
as well?
Mr. Guith. Absolutely. As this country continues to grow
its production of both oil and gas, the pipeline system is
expanding and it is becoming incredibly more important to the
movement of those fuels and those resources.
And, you know, I think this committee pointed out when when
you had the PHMSA hearing a few weeks back that, you know,
modernizing PHMSA and getting it more personnel is incredibly
important, and it is to keep up with the pace of a burgeoning
U.S. energy sector.
Mr. Upton. And Ms. Eckdish, as part of the BlueGreen
Alliance, I mean, this is really a job creator. I mean, we had
a pipeline break in my--actually, it was outside of my
district--back in 2010. That gas line was completely replaced.
Four and a half million dollars a mile is what the cost to
replace it was. They did it with a new standard and, you know,
the one spill, again, was outside of my district, but it was a
billion dollars to clean up.
So a pipeline safety bill is, you know, anywhere we look--
and Mr. Shimkus has been a good leader on this as well--but
more than a million miles of pipelines across the country, this
is something we ought to focus on, knowing that in fact it is
going to be better for the environment. Wouldn't you agree?
Ms. Eckdish. Absolutely. Pipeline safety is not only a
safety issue. It is a critical safety issue. It is also an
environmental issue when you consider methane emissions from
these pipelines being, you know, an extremely potent driver of
climate change as well as the tremendous job creation potential
that can be achieved by repairing and replacing some of these
pipelines as well as through leak detection and repair.
Mr. Upton. I know my time has expired, but I know other
colleagues will talk about the importance of cybersecurity
related to this, too.
Yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Mr. Doyle recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing and introducing this important legislation
which I was proud to cosponsor, and I want to thank all the
witnesses for being here today also.
My hometown of Pittsburgh, like many cities, has aging
infrastructure than can threaten the health and safety of
residents if it is not properly updated and maintained.
I am glad to see that the LIFT Act includes investments in
drinking water infrastructure as lead and PFAS contamination
remain issues in our region and throughout Pennsylvania.
Also very happy to see the investments in energy, health,
and communications infrastructure as well. These investments
are critical to the future of our country.
Commissioner Clyburn, Chairman Pallone's LIFT America Act
would invest $40 billion in deploying broadband infrastructure
to communities across rural America.
Many of the members of this committee represent communities
that lack access to broadband. Why is it important that
Congress invest in the deployment?
What would this bill achieve that private investment and
existing Federal programs won't? And what do we lose by not
making this investment today, and what will those communities
lose?
Ms. Clyburn. Well, I will start with the last first. We
lose our young people. They won't have the educational
opportunities or access to them needed.
We lose quicker our older and those who are medically
challenged because they might not have a specialist nearby, but
with connectivity they are able to access it.
One of the things that you just put forth in that question
is it is not so much what we will lose, it is what we can't
afford to. I mean, literally, we literally can't afford because
we are paying the price for the lack of infrastructure.
We are paying a price for the lack of access. We are paying
a high price, and communities are not competitive. People are
not getting access to goods and services they need to thrive.
We lose a lot--we lose a little bit of everyone in those
communities when we don't address this.
Mr. Doyle. So can this deployment happen strictly on
private investment and existing programs, or does the Federal
Government----
Ms. Clyburn. Well, if the last 5 years is any indication,
and when you don't see appreciably the number of, you know, 24
million according to the FCC, million people not--that has been
hovering. That number has been constant for a long time.
So the public-private partnership, while it has
incrementally been doing some positive, it is not getting us to
where we need to get in an expedited way. This is a targeted
infusion, a promised infusion in those communities. With a
public-private partnership, again, it is more of a tortoise-
and-hare approach.
Mr. Doyle. Let me ask you also about, Chairman Pallone's
LIFT America Act would invest $12 billion in deploying Next
Generation 9-1-1 service. It is a critical issue, and it is one
that has been championed by my friends Anna Eshoo and John
Shimkus.
When will NG 9-1-1 service be deployed to all Americans if
we don't make this investment now, and what are the risks if we
delay doing this?
And then also talk a little bit about the benefits of NT 9-
1-1 service to regular Americans, and in particular what are
the advantages to people living in communities that are subject
to extreme storms and weathers like California and Texas and
Florida and Puerto Rico? I mean, right as we speak today,
throughout the Midwest, States are just being pummelled with
tornadoes 4, 5, 6 days in a row. What are the impacts of not
having that service for those people?
Ms. Clyburn. The impact of not moving to the next
evolutionary phase is lives lost, both from the person who has
the emergency and the critical person who is providing the
service.
One of the images that I saw that I think sums it up is,
one of the first responders needed a response, and I really
believe if we had a video and robust texting opportunities they
might have been better able to assess that emergency and really
acted on it.
There are too many public safety centers that can't take
texts. You know, you have to call. Now, heaven forbid if I get
held up and can't, you know, talk. I am more at risk.
So not addressing this and maintaining a 50-year-old
framework, which is what we are doing now and not moving ahead,
really does not allow individuals to communicate in a way. It
doesn't allow for interoperability, and it doesn't allow for us
to be as safe as we need to be.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Doyle.
Mr. Shimkus for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A great hearing, multiple issues. I wish we had more time,
but we got, obviously, a big attendance here also. So I am
going to try to go pretty quick.
I want to really highlight Jerry McNerney for dropping the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendment of 2019. Blunt Rochester is
a cosponsor. Doyle is. Flores is. Hundred-billion-dollar
infrastructure plan over a hundred years paid for.
Sounds like a pretty good deal. And that is what this act
would do, and it would help rail, roads getting our nuclear
waste, which is all over the country--121 locations, 39
States--to a long-term repository.
So I want to thank him for that, and I want to encourage my
colleagues on the committee to look at that bill and ask us
questions, and then consider cosponsoring it, as the chairman
is at least supportive of having a hearing and discussing this,
and I appreciate that.
But it is $100 billion over a hundred years paid for
because ratepayers have paid into a fund to enact this. So it
is nothing--when we ask about where the money is coming from,
the ratepayers in these States have already paid for this. So I
want to make that----
Mr. Guith, do you think there can be a viable long-term
energy and national security policy and this climate debate
without nuclear power?
Mr. Guith. No.
Mr. Shimkus. And I----
Mr. Guith. There is scientific consensus around that.
Mr. Shimkus. All right. And, you know, nuclear being
carbon-fee emissions, if we want to meet any type of objectives
and keep rates somewhat acceptable, we will still have to have
base load major generation. So I appreciate that.
Also, Mr. Tonko and I were able in the last Congress to
reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act through this
committee--the Bbrownfieldsrownfields redevelopment, which the
mayor talked about, and I sat through a lot of those hearings
with your colleagues.
I think the only thing that gives me pause on this parts of
legislation is this is authorization. Then the question is
appropriation. And do we run the risk of authorizing--setting
the bar so high that two things.
One is it is unrealistic because there is always going to
be some buy-in and that it causes--you know, it causes a more
of a pause because we are planning for all these big things but
the money just doesn't show.
And I want to go with Mr. Guith, but I do want to ask also
to the mayor also.
Mr. Guith. It's an age-old friction between authorizers and
appropriators, and that's how the system is set up and we think
it is important to make sure that authorizers take the time to
stipulate what the parameters of the program should be
regularly--not, you know, every couple of decades but
regularly--and then take a very active role in the
appropriations process to ensure that it is backed up with the
actual moneys that are needed to fund the programs.
Mr. Shimkus. Mayor?
Mr. Wahler. I think one of the drawbacks of what you are
saying is that, you know, backdooring the ARRA with the energy
efficiency block grant program, there was some criticism of the
fact that the program didn't get off the way it should have
been.
But part of the problem was through the Department of
Energy. They set a lot of bureaucratic regulations within that,
and then we had to report ARRA standards too. Towns and cities
and counties across this country are used to the model of the
community development block grant programming.
And I wouldn't necessarily fault the towns and communities
for that. Like in my community, we already have an 8-year
program. We know what needs to get done. It is about $100
million worth of projects. But the problem is, we just don't
have all the money.
Mr. Shimkus. Right.
Mr. Wahler. And we need seed money in a lot of cases.
Mr. Shimkus. Is there not a concern of false expectations
with high numbers and----
Mr. Wahler. No. You know what? You know, we have----
Mr. Shimkus. If you could be quick. I got one more question
I got to get in.
Mr. Wahler. OK. We have an aging infrastructure out there.
Everybody knows that.
Mr. Shimkus. Right.
Mr. Wahler. At all levels of all multifacets. Something
needs to be done and----
Mr. Shimkus. OK. Let me ask about this, because this is
tied into the committee of jurisdiction and you have already
talked about the PFAS issue.
So we got PFOA, PFAS--600 of these somewhat chemical chains
in our, you know, in our environment. What if some of these,
Mayor, are safe, because there is different formulations of
this, and if the government says you have to clean up something
that is safe at that investment capital, would you or could
you, or would you----
Mr. Wahler. Well, I just want to let the record reflect I
am not a medical doctor to talk like that.
Mr. Shimkus. Well, yes. You are talking to us.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wahler. But the end game is, is that nobody wants to
see unsafe drinking water. My good friend Karen Weaver from
Flint, Michigan, I don't--I would not--I just emphasize what
the folks in Flint, Michigan, had to go through, and I am sure
nobody in this room ever wants to see that in your community
out there.
But we need to work with the health professionals
nationally along with the counties and towns across this
country.
Mr. Shimkus. And my time is way expired, but I would just
say we got to make sure we know if it is--what is safe and what
is not safe, and we got to be careful about saying ``ban
everything,'' because some of that stuff may be safe and high
cost.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You let me go way over my time,
and I appreciate it.
Mr. Pallone. OK.
Next I will recognize Ms. Matsui for 5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome
to the panel. Thank you for being here today.
I was pleased to see that the LIFT America Act reauthorized
the popular Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, or as we call it,
DERA program.
As you may know, earlier this spring I introduced
legislation to reauthorize DERA and led the effort to secure
robust funding in fiscal year 2020 appropriations.
Diesel engines still pose a unique problem because of the
long lifespan of the equipment, with some engines operating for
up to 20 or 30 years.
Because of this, the transition to newer, cleaner engines
has been slow, and as a result diesel fuel consumption still
accounts for a large percentage of our transportation sector
carbon dioxide emissions--24 percent in 2017 alone, according
to the Energy Information Administration.
Ms. Eckdish, can you quickly discuss how the nature of
diesel engines poses a unique challenge to our local
communities?
Ms. Eckdish. Thank you for the question.
That specific issue is a little bit outside of my area of
expertise. But I would say to your broader point about the need
to address diesel and other emissions from the transportation
sector, we have a long way to go and what LIFT America Act has
done so far in terms of both the diesel emission reduction
program as well as building out EV infrastructure is a step in
the right direction, and we want to make sure that the
emissions go down and that we are creating good jobs while we
do that.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you.
And I think it is important, as you mentioned, that this
bill is prioritizing electric vehicle, or EV, infrastructure,
you know, because transportation emissions, as we said, are now
the largest single source of emissions in this country.
While we thought we might get a handle on this under the
Obama administration's rules on fuel economy and greenhouse gas
emission standards, the Trump administration decided to roll
back these standards and bring our country backwards when it
comes to cleaning up our transportation sector.
This is, obviously, a critical part of our larger vision to
combat climate change and create healthier, safer communities
for our constituents.
While I have introduced legislation that will safeguard
these standards, it is also important to provide robust
investments for EV infrastructure and the purchase of EVs.
Mayor Wahler or Ms. Eckdish, can either of you discuss what
some of the largest barriers to widespread adoption of EVs is
today and how this bill might alleviate some of these
obstacles?
Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Wahler. I think, Congresswoman, the question is a lot
of towns and cities have really stepped up to the plate because
there is--for lack of a better word, there hasn't been so much
of a partnership at the Federal level or, in some cases, at the
State level.
So most of the initiatives that you see positively across
this country has been happening at the State and local level,
to a certain extent. Like in my community, we recognize that
with charging stations that we have to start somewhere.
So we changed our zoning laws. Any new large development or
commercial developments have to supply charging station areas
as well at government facilities that we've been doing because,
basically, 80 percent of the roadways in this country are
municipal or county.
So if you are going to ever have a network system to reduce
carbon emissions, we need to start at the local level.
Ms. Matsui. Right. And I really believe--I think what you
are saying, too, is having a Federal activity in this realm
would be great.
I mean, in California we are doing it. In fact, our
utilities are helping with the EV charging stations themselves,
which actually activates the incentive to buy EV automobiles--
--
Mr. Wahler. That is an exception, Congresswoman.
Ms. Matsui. I know.
Mr. Wahler. Your State is an exception.
Ms. Matsui. But if we get it at the national level, I think
that would be very helpful also.
I want to ask a question about the Remote Areas Fund. I am
switching here, but this is everything here.
In 2011, the FCC acknowledged that the highest-cost,
hardest-to-reach places around the country should be targeted
through a Remote Area Fund--as we call it, RAF.
In 2017, the Commission reaffirmed that it aims to move
forward with the RAF no later than a year after the Connect
America Fund reverse auction.
Many RAF-eligible communities still do not have access to a
safe and reliable broadband option. If structured properly, the
RAF would reach the communities in rural America where it is
truly no business case to serve.
Now, Commissioner Clyburn, mindful of the larger proposed
reforms to the Universal Service Fund, do you have any idea
what steps the FCC could take to ensure the RAF is a success?
We have got 25 seconds here.
Ms. Clyburn. Oh. One of the things that I think it could do
is get the maps right so we can have an accurate feel for what
is needed. Another is ensure that it is technology neutral so
we can extract the best ideas for our buck, and leveraging what
I know you will do today through this act it definitely will
help move things along.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Fine. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Dr. Burgess recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Auerbach, I want to thank you for mentioning the
Pandemic All-Hazard Preparedness Act reauthorization. It was,
indeed, a very high priority of this committee and the Health
Subcommittee last Congress and due to the--an even temperament
over in the other body, and I am being careful with my
language.
It did finally pass on unanimous consent earlier this week.
As we are just a little bit past the 100-year anniversary of
the Spanish flu, it is important to get this done, and you are
correct to mention some of the infrastructure needs because
that is so critical.
For the first time we will authorize the system Biowatch.
We had Mission Zero, which was to--it was a force multiplier
for our trauma surgeons and military-trained physicians. So
there is a lot of good stuff in that bill, and I am glad the
Senate finally passed it.
Professor Lyons, you brought up the concept of allocation
proportion, which I think is reasonable in a State like Texas
where we have--what, 85 percent of the State lives within 50
miles of Interstate 35 going north to south, from the north
Texas area down to Laredo, and then you got the rest of Texas.
So then allocation proportion becomes very important. In
fact, I was reading some stuff in the local press and the
Houston Press this morning about how concerned they are about
the formulas that are being used to allocate these dollars.
And I don't know if you have any thoughts on that, but we
are going to have to make sure that we keep up with the fact
that it may not be as straightforward as the FCC has
demonstrated in their formulas.
Mr. Lyons. I think that is right. I think the goal in
allocating the dollars should be to keep an eye on what the
overall purpose of the subsidy is, which first and foremost is
to make sure that you are reaching unserved areas.
And so, when figuring out how to allocate the dollars that
are being distributed to the States, the important thing I
think is to figure out what is the population of the unserved
area in each State and allocate the money that way.
That way you make sure that you don't have the unintended
consequence of sending too much money to one State or another
because of the fact that city might have a larger urban area.
Mr. Burgess. So you have got a lot of geography in some
areas without a lot of population, and it just makes it
technically more difficult. But it doesn't mean that it
shouldn't be done.
Mr. Lyons. That is right, and I think that is why the
technology-neutral point is really important too, because
wireless solutions may be great in Kansas. It's not going to be
so great in mountainous West Virginia, right.
So giving more flexibility to bidders to figure out how
best to serve individual areas makes a lot of sense to me.
Mr. Burgess. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Guith, you struck on something that has really
concerned me since I first got here in 2003, and that is the
streamlining of permitting.
At that time I was thinking more in the terms of road
construction, and we had the 50-year anniversary of the
interstate highway system, and I think 80 percent of it was
built in the first 25 years of the--the last connectivity was
built in the next 25 years because the permitting process had
become so difficult.
The president has said this--it can't take longer to permit
a project than it does to build a project--and I trust that
your group is working on that, working with the White House,
working with the Congress to make sure that we keep that top of
mind.
Mr. Guith. Very much so, and it is, like I said, a
bipartisan effort. FAST-41 was the last time we touched upon
this issue. It took many years. It was painful, but it was
rewarding because both sides holding hands and we saw the first
meaningful changes, maybe not substantive but more transparency
as far as how the Federal permitting system works so that
people from the outside--the project sponsors could figure out
where their project is and who is reviewing it and, oh by the
way, you know, this agency doesn't talk to this agency and
maybe they should.
So now there is a interlocutor who can do that. So it is a
huge step forward, and we are looking for a few more of those
huge step forwards in this process.
Mr. Burgess. Well, thank you and thank you for that. It is
critical that we keep that in mind.
Ms. Eckdish, let me just ask you a question. I was at the
White House last week and the President, as you may have heard,
had an event regarding immigration and visas.
I think you correctly talk about American-made products
being the ones that we want to use on these projects. You
talked about a fair wage for employees.
Would you be willing to accept--if this legislation were to
come through the Rules Committee, where I also sit, would you
be willing to accept an amendment to require mandatory eVerify
so we can be certain we are giving American jobs for American
workers at American wages?
Ms. Eckdish. I am not sure that we have a position on that
as a coalition. But I would be happy to review and get back to
you.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will
yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
So next is the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes,
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our
panel. And I want to salute you, Mr. Chairman, for assembling
this very important package of infrastructure investments. It
is about time, and our committee, I think, is very well
positioned to contribute to the broad discussion we are having
across the Congress about making this a priority.
Last Congress, I was very proud to be a cosponsor of the
LIFT America Act, and I am certainly pleased again to do it in
this Congress.
It provides, as we know from this discussion and certainly
from pulling the bill together, its many components, much-
needed resources for our Nation's critical infrastructure.
I know that typically when we hear ``infrastructure,'' the
first thing that comes to mind for many people is roads and
bridges, and obviously those are important pieces of our
physical infrastructure and are in dire need of important
resources.
But we can't forget about other infrastructure that is
vital to the health and well-being of Americans: drinking water
infrastructure, the electric grid, and infrastructure for
community health centers being among them.
I wanted to focus my attention on the electric grid, which
is facing many challenges, as we know. There is growing demand.
There is need for reliability, integration of new technologies,
need for resiliency against climate change and extreme weather
events.
These are all challenges that require that our electric
grid adapt to 21st century requirements.
Ms. Eckdish, can you just talk for a moment about how
modernizing our grid--our electric grid--is a smart investment,
from helping obviously to address carbon emissions to promoting
reliability and affordability, and any other benefits that you
would like to observe?
Ms. Eckdish. Sure. Thank you for the question.
And as you rightly pointed out, there is a lot of work to
do. Many of the components of our electric grid are from a
hundred years ago.
Our grid was built for an energy system of the past and not
what we have today or what we are going to have in the future.
So there is tremendous need for both grid modernization, smart
grid updates, as well as investing in grid resiliency, all of
which the LIFT America Act does.
There is also significant need to build out our
transmission lines to both increase efficiency and reliability
as well as facilitate the incorporation of more renewables onto
our grid.
All of those will have significant impacts, benefits from
addressing climate change to making our communities more
resilient. There are also very significant infrastructure
projects that, again, if we include strong labor standards and
procurement standards can create good-quality jobs.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much.
Mr. Wahler, you certainly know firsthand about the
importance of a resilient and reliable grid, as your community
was devastated by Superstorm Sandy.
Can you talk about how these extreme weather events like
what you experienced and obviously what we are seeing more and
more of across the country and as it relates to being handled
or is being felt, I guess, most impactfully by people who are
trying to lead at the local level, what the effect of those on
our grid infrastructure is and how investments in the grid
resiliency that we are talking about here are important for
local communities?
Mr. Wahler. If I may, Congressman, as well, most towns and
cities are waiting for State regulators at the State level to
have the transmission carriers upgrade their lines.
Towns and cities at this point are looking at the backup
resources there. Like, for instance, our community, we have a
lot of solar panels in our facility.
We also have backup generators on all of our pumping
stations now, or the sewers. We actually have backup batteries
for all 30 signalized intersections, because when the power
grid goes down people still travel around the road and you have
to have some safety measures.
So that has been a challenging part for a lot of
communities. They don't necessarily have the money to have the
resiliency done, and that is why I think we really need a
partnership at the Federal level to have a helping hand out
there because, in times of a crisis like during Hurricane
Sandy, where you had no power in our community for almost nine
days straight when the weather was getting very cold out there,
and you had people calling the mayor's office, ``How am I going
to get heat?''
And it is a very poignant--as Chairman Pallone knows, it is
a very frightening situation for most of the general public. So
this is something to be taken very seriously. Mayors and county
officials across the country take this very seriously,
Congressman.
Mr. Sarbanes. I appreciate your comments, and you talked
about the importance of partnering from a resource standpoint,
and I am very pleased that the bill I was able to work on and
introduce, the 21st Century Power Grid Act, is included in this
package because it would empower the Department of Energy to
support projects that improve grid performance, security,
resiliency, and it would do that through grantmaking and
cooperative agreements. And those kinds of Federal investments
in our grid infrastructure are essential if we are going to
overcome the challenges that we are talking about here today.
So thank you very much for your testimony, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Mr. Latta recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks very
much for having today's hearing, and thanks to our witnesses
for being here today.
Commissioner Clyburn, if I could start my questions with
you. First of all, welcome back in your new capacity.
Ms. Clyburn. Thank you.
Mr. Latta. I appreciate your comments on how you noted
Commissioner O'Rielly's work on the importance of coordination.
It is something we have been focused on here in committee. The
ACCESS BROADBAND recently passed the House, and I am looking
forward at further steps we can take to get the different
existing programs working together.
Would you speak to some of the effects you have seen when
coordination is lacking?
Ms. Clyburn. One of the things that we see, and it might be
a benefit to some people, but you see subsidizing of
unsubsidized carriers getting money to serve the same area.
Now, while that may fuel competition, we also see broadband
providers not being in certain areas because of that. You know,
lack of coordination and that is--you know, that disconnect and
that, again, fuels all the opportunities.
So the biggest thing is duplications--duplications, the
inefficiency and, again, investments not going to areas. That
is the saddest part of it--investment not going to areas where
it is needed.
Mr. Latta. OK. Thank you.
Professor Lyons, should we try to address coordination in a
more substantial way as we consider further spending on
broadband deployment?
Mr. Lyons. I think we have got several different programs
that are sort of aiming at the same thing. But if they are not
talking one another, you get a ton of overlap and inefficiency.
One difficulty with creating these types of initiatives on
a one-off basis is, once it is created, it tends to stick
around. So I don't know if this is beyond the scope of what
this committee is considering right now, but one solution might
be to think about consolidating all of these into one program
that would look more comprehensively at the question of serving
unserved areas with one decisionmaker who is allocating one pot
of money rather than dividing among several different groups.
What I am thinking of is the Connect America Fund, which
has done great work, but it is hobbled by the fact that it is
laboring under restrictions of the Universal Service Fund that
were created for a very different era.
It is a program that is doing the best with what it can.
But closing that down and shifting the money to something like
this that is focused primarily on building broadband
infrastructure out I think would be an improvement.
Mr. Latta. OK. Let me ask another question to you. I agree
with your comments that funding should be distributed on a
technology-neutral basis.
However, as you noted, the 100 megabit per second minimum
service standard risks overinvesting in fewer projects. Does
this service standard also threaten the principle of tech
neutrality?
Mr. Lyons. It does in the sense--if you--which is probably
true right now, that 100 megabits per second minimum is one
that some technologies can hit and others cannot.
We have to think about ways to deploy good enough broadband
or broadband that is going to connect people who are currently
unconnected, and setting too high of a threshold may prevent
the number of players who can come in and bid.
I often tell my students that the satellite guys are
perpetually creating a state-of-the-art network for, like, 7
years ago. And I think that is a bit of an overstatement but
the idea is that technology is great but it is advancing at the
same rate that fiber is advancing and wireless is advancing. So
they are perpetually just a little bit behind.
But if they are meeting the mark that they can provide
basic connectivity, they ought to be in the mix of the
conversation and not be hobbled in their ability to bid in the
reverse auction by the fact that they can't hit a 100 megabit
target if a 100 megabit target hasn't been justified.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Mr. Guith, while much of our Nation's infrastructure
depends on Federal investments, the private sector needs to
step up to make needed investments in our electric grid.
In your view, what is the greatest impediment to unleashing
more private-sector investments?
Mr. Guith. Within the electric grid it is relatively
simple. It is the inability to site intrastate transmission
lines. Unlike with natural gas pipelines, where Congress
bestowed a Federal preemption to FERC, licensing and permitting
of transmission lines is a State-by-State, Balkanized process,
and it frequently takes north of a decade to try and get
through that process, and usually it turns out negatively.
We have seen both DC and AC lines stopped by a single
State, even though it may benefit, you know, 14 States.
So it would be very useful to have that Federal preemption
for transmission the same way we do with natural gas, although
you probably have 50 Governors who might take issue with that.
Mr. Latta. And just in my last 10 seconds, you might answer
a little bit of this. But what should Congress do to encourage
more public-private partnerships? I know you just mentioned
preemption.
Mr. Guith. I am sorry. Can you repeat the last part of the
question?
Mr. Latta. Yes. What should Congress do to encourage more
of the public-private partnerships?
Mr. Guith. Fundamentally, just more transparency, more
predictability. There are trillions of dollars out there both
in corporations, financial service funds as well as foreign
sovereign funds, who are willing to invest in all forms of
infrastructure within the United States.
But it is not predictable enough right now, and providing
that predictability will open the floodgates to that additional
money that is not coming from the U.S. taxpayer.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, and I appreciate the
indulgence. I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Mr. McNerney recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I thank the chairman. I thank the
witnesses for coming in this morning and talking and preparing.
It is a big effort.
My constituents and Americans across the country need
broadband access to fully participate in our society. The LIFT
Act will result in smart Federal investments and broadband
deployment to achieve this goal.
But I am concerned that many Americans still are unable to
get online because they face adoption hurdles such as not being
able to afford broadband service and the necessary devices or
do not have digital literacy skills.
Commissioner Clyburn, based on your experience at the
Commission, what are some of the ways that the lack of adoption
impacts low-income individuals in their communities?
Ms. Clyburn. Well, one thing that I am happy about, today I
consider it a very significant $40 billion down payment. This
is but a first step, however.
You rightly mentioned that in order for a person to be
truly connected it has to be affordable, it has to be
available, and they have to know or be comfortable in using it,
because if they are not comfortable accessing online, if they
cannot download an app, and if you don't have those skills
needed, you won't have workforce development training.
You will not be able to be retooled for the 21st century.
So all of these things are necessary. It is a multiprong,
definitely a stool effect that is needed--a number of legs on
the stool. This is one. Digital literacy and other
opportunities are others.
Mr. McNerney. So you already sort of answered my second
question. Would you agree that there is additional Federal
investments needed for broadband skills and digital literary
training?
Ms. Clyburn. Absolutely. A very wonderful complement is a
proposed digital equity act. You know, that, again, has to be a
complement to this. Otherwise, America will not be truly
connected.
Mr. McNerney. Very good. Well, I have been working with
Chairman Pallone on that and plan to introduce that soon so we
get to some of these issues so the disadvantaged and
underserved communities aren't left out.
Moving on to water infrastructure, the Smart Energy and
Water Efficiency Act proposed by Mr. Kinzinger and myself is
included in this LIFT Act, and this creates a pilot project for
innovative technologies to improve energy efficiency of water,
waste water, and water reuse systems.
My district is at the heart of the California delta, and I
have a responsibility to be a good steward of that incredible
resource.
Mr. Wahler, can you address the need for grants to improve
water and waste water infrastructure in communities like yours?
Mr. Wahler. Well, right now, cities and towns across this
country and particularly mine, we float a lot of money through
it--the Federal and State--and there is a very small portion of
the down payment money.
Like I said before, we spend an average of $10 million a
year on infrastructure even though our water has been in
private hands for a number of years. I do know that the water
purveyor has been making substantial public improvements out
there on the roadways to make sure that the clean standards are
being followed and that we don't have any areas where we have
to shut down schools because of nonsafe water.
However, what I would like to say is that we need to have
towns and counties that don't necessarily have the expertise
out there.
Grants such as what you were mentioning would help them get
that expertise and do proper long-term planning out there so,
when they go to do a large capital investment of the local
public dollars, they will be able to do it correctly.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Auerbach, you testified that Americans' life expectancy
has dropped for the last 3 years in a row. Is that in line with
other developed countries?
Mr. Auerbach. It isn't. We are seeing more of a gap that is
growing between the United States and other developed
countries. We have looked at the reasons for that. Some of the
causes of increased deaths in the United States relate to
opiate epidemics, suicides, et cetera. So paying attention to
those differences, I think, is part of what we need to do to
understand how to close that gap.
Mr. McNerney. Do you think the LIFT Act will help remedy
this?
Mr. Auerbach. It will. Our ability to respond efficiently
to the challenges that we are facing now will benefit the
American people in terms of better surveillance, better
understanding of where there are concentrations of particular
problems that may be related to the opioid epidemic.
If we have got the kind of data systems that allow us to
have interoperable communication, we can target those
particular areas with interventions that we know work in terms
of prevention and response.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I was going to talk about
infrastructure on transmission. Just yesterday, a colleague,
Bob Latta, and I hosted a grid innovation expo to highlight
some of the technologies out there, and I hope that Members and
staff take advantage of that information as we move forward.
Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Mrs. Rodgers?
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate all
the witnesses being here today. I wanted to highlight the
broadband in rural areas issue, which is especially important.
I think it is fundamental to our economic success and our
future. It is certainly part of the infrastructure of the 21st
century.
Unfortunately, too many rural areas are being left behind,
including some in eastern Washington that I represent. And to
make matters worse, an issue that has been highlighted this
Congress is the inaccurate broadband mapping and the data that
is greatly overstated--the coverage in the rural areas.
I am pleased that broadband is part of the discussion today
and, as we think about an infrastructure package, that this is
going to be a priority.
However, with the economic survival of our rural
communities at stake, we must avoid the mistakes of the past
and ensure that the limited resources we are able to provide
make it to the areas that need it the most.
Forty billion dollars is a considerable amount of funding.
But its ability to make a dent in the digital divide is going
to be reliant on accurate data.
And that is why in the coming weeks I am planning on
introducing the House version of the Broadband Data Improvement
Act. This bill will ensure that the FCC is compiling the most
complete and granular data on broadband access.
Mr. Lyons, how important is it for the current mapping
process to be improved and made more accurate and granular
before distributing new funds to deploy broadband in the rural
areas?
Mr. Lyons. I think it is absolutely vital. I think that
analysis is only as good as the data that is fueling the
analysis, right.
You can have complex statistical models to figure out how
something is going to work, but if it is bad data being fed
into it, then you are going to get bad results out.
I think everybody acknowledges that the FCC's existing
mapping protocols don't really work. They are based on Form
477, which was developed back in the dial-up era, right--back
when most of us didn't have internet and those that did were
dealing with that junky static noise, right.
The FCC is updating that, and I think it is long overdue
and it is going to be valuable. I think there's also a lot of
public-private partnerships that could be valuable in this
space. Things like U.S. Telecom and WISPA are currently engaged
in a pilot project to map within some of their jurisdictions.
Somebody mentioned crowd sourcing, which I think is also
really valuable. Just getting information that is disbursed in
the populace up to the FCC or some other entity that can
coordinate all these separate data points into more accurate
mapping is also going to be valuable.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Appreciate that.
For Mr. Guith, you may be aware that I am a strong
proponent of hydropower. I come from Washington State. We are
more than 70 percent dependent upon hydropower. It is clean. It
is carbon free.
We also enjoy some of the lowest electricity rates in the
country. Hydropower is the largest renewable in America, and
its role, as we move forward, is going to be really important.
I have been working to increase the use of this important
energy both nationally and internationally. Last year, we
worked on legislation--bipartisan legislation--that passed the
House to modernize the hydropower licensing process.
The current regulations take on average 10 years to
relicense a hydropower project in America, and you compare this
to a natural gas facility that is, like, 18 months.
I wanted to ask you how do you believe hydropower fits into
the bigger picture of energy infrastructure.
Mr. Guith. I think it is a great example of the United
States being so rich in energy resources that it behooves us to
use the resources that we have geographically.
And growing up in northern California, we also rely on
hydro significantly, and we run into issues all the time trying
to site incremental increases in hydro and, frankly, have to
fight to keep the existing generation we have. And not just
from the generation standpoint, but increasingly from the pump
storage standpoint.
So I think hydro is and will remain an incredibly important
part of our portfolio. But there can be more. There is
certainly more capacity available in the United States, and it
is not just in the Pacific Northwest, which is so blessed with
hydro to begin with.
Mrs. Rodgers. Well, and because of research, because of
investment in new technologies--we have fish ladders, we have
turbines that have larger outputs and we are getting to a place
where dams are transparent to the fish--3 percent of the dams
in America actually produce hydropower.
So there is existing infrastructure that is currently there
that with investment we could be producing clean, renewable
electricity.
So I wanted just to follow up. How do you believe that we
reduce some of the burdensome regulations that are impacting
our ability to really take advantage of this?
Mr. Guith. Well, I think the work that Congress did with
your leadership last year was a great first step. First and
foremost, it is trying to identify what the issues are and then
addressing them.
In this case, like I said, there's a lot--I mean, you are
talking about multiple agencies that you have to go through
here, and sometimes they don't even know each other, let alone
have communication lines to talk to each other.
And so first, it is highlighting that, and we have seen the
ability of the FIPC to address some of these issues, and it
certainly applies to hydro as well.
It is not the end-all be-all, but it is what is available
right now. And there are certainly some additional bipartisan
reforms, whether it is one Federal decision, some reasonable
NEPA reforms that I think over time people will embrace that
will help spur these things, including hydro.
Mrs. Rodgers. I appreciate that, and it dominates in the
Pacific Northwest, it is true. But I have always been amazed at
the projects that are all over the country as well as all over
the world.
So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Ms. Castor is next, recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Chairman Pallone, for holding
this very important hearing on how we modernize infrastructure
across America.
I agree with what I have heard from my colleagues and our
terrific witnesses here today. We can boost higher-paying jobs
across this country by expanding broadband, doubling down on
the clean energy economy, doing some more on public health
infrastructure, and I am hearing great support from folks I
represent back home in the State of Florida.
They understand what the Recovery Act meant to our
communities, and they would like a more robust partnership.
Really, the Federal Government has got to be a meaningful
partner. It can't be just all talk, no action.
I am particularly interested in how we build a 100 percent
clean energy economy, going forward, and Ms. Eckdish, thank you
so much for your leadership and that of the BlueGreen Alliance.
You are already building partnerships across the country to
build that clean energy economy. Would you go into greater
detail on a few things--smart grid investments--why do you
think that those smart grid investments could be a key to
building the clean energy economy, and then talk about what it
means for jobs when we are talking about smart grids and a
modern electric grid.
And then I would also like you to focus on energy
efficiency in green buildings. I have seen what the private
sector is doing. Now, the public sector wants to do more, but
it seems like they need some resources from the feds to help
give them a push.
Ms. Eckdish. Sure. Thank you for the question, and thank
you for your leadership with the Select Committee.
In terms of your first question, I think grid modernization
is key both from a climate resilience perspective as well as a
greenhouse gas emission reduction perspective.
As I mentioned, grid modernization, grid resiliency, as
well as transmission expansion can be key to facilitating
electric vehicles as well as further deployment of clean energy
onto our grid.
It can also help ensure that our communities are more
resilient to the impacts of climate change, as you know well in
your State from power outages to flooding and storm surges.
To your second question, building efficiency is key and a
huge opportunity. There are already 2 million workers employed
in the energy efficiency sector today.
So with further investments, we know we can dramatically
expand those jobs. And many of those today are already good
jobs in the building and construction trades. With domestic
content requirements, we can also expand the manufacturing of
energy-efficient products and materials.
There are already tremendous jobs today in the
manufacturing of energy-efficient component parts. So with
further Federal investment coupled with labor standards and
procurement standards, there is significant opportunity to
expand that.
Ms. Castor. So I had to step out of the hearing for a
little while to sit down with one of America's mayors of a very
large metropolitan area, and he explained to me how they run a
municipal utility and they decided to go 100 percent clean
energy over the next couple of decades.
And one of the things they set out to do, they took their
coal plants offline. But he said they had to give special
attention to a lot of the folks who were employed there and
it--yes, it means community college training initiatives, but
it can't just be a short-term focus.
This has got to be something that we focus on to ensure as
we transition from the old dirty fossil fuel energy sources to
clean energy sources that we just--it can't be simply a
training program, temporary for a few months or a year.
Talk to me about what the model should be going forward for
a just transition.
Ms. Eckdish. Sure. Thank you.
I think your point is well taken. These facilities are not
only--you can't only think about the workers at the facilities.
You need to think about those workers as well as the broader
impact on the communities themselves.
In many cases, these plants are huge tax base resources for
the communities in which they're located. So that means
resources for infrastructure, schools, first responders.
So we need to make sure, as we are thinking about
addressing climate change and the clean economy of the future,
that no community or worker is left behind and they shouldn't
be paying the price.
We need to make sure not only that workers directly
impacted are kept whole, but also that we are focusing on
reinvestment in these communities that are seeing these losses.
Ms. Castor. And what this mayor said was, as they created
jobs in the green economy, whether they are solar installers or
working in energy efficiency, they became the higher-paying,
more family-sustaining jobs than some of the older fossil-fuel-
type jobs. Are you seeing that as well?
Ms. Eckdish. I think a lot of the jobs that we see today in
the fossil fuel economy are good jobs, and are--there is some
significant union density.
I think what we need to make sure is that the jobs that we
are creating in the clean economy are as good if not better,
and making sure we have strong labor standards and procurement
standards. Our investing in retraining is a key part of
ensuring that.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Ms. Castor.
Next is Mr. Guthrie, recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate
everybody for being here today.
And my first question is for Ms. Eckdish and Mr. Lyons to
comment on this--Professor Lyons to comment on this as you
move--as we go.
So, Ms. Eckdish, in your testimony you agreed with our
efforts to win the 5G and the $40 billion for expedited
deployment of broadband, and I appreciate your commitment to
that.
But attached into your testimony was advocacy for the
overturning of FCC's small cell order. And so my question is,
wouldn't the overturning of the small cell order be a setback
for expedited deployment of 5G?
Ms. Eckdish. We do support restoring the ability of local
governments to regulate deployment of small cells, and we see
that as key for these communities meeting the needs of their--
--
Mr. Guthrie. That would be a setback for expedited--I mean,
I understand we need a debate before this decision needs to
happen. But it would slow down the deployment of 5 because you
have to deal with every locality as opposed to a national
standard.
Ms. Eckdish. I would love to follow up on that.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Mr. Lyons, would you like to have a----
Mr. Lyons. Yes. I think a big driver of the FCC small cell
order is the fact that 5G technology is very different than the
4G and 3G towers that were driving the original tower statutes,
right.
When you are talking about whether you are going to put a
large tower in a town that, you know, you can see from several
miles away, having significant local input makes a lot of
sense.
When you're talking about little pizza-box-sized spaces all
around town, it is a different impact. And so the trade-off
between how much we should give local authority and how much we
should be expediting build-out of infrastructure, the calculus
changes a little bit, and that is part of what was driving the
small cell order.
I do think repealing the small cell order would slow things
down, because it would add an additional potential veto gate
into the building out of new infrastructure.
And as we saw in--from time after time, right, satellite
deployment and local franchising authority in cable industry
and things like that, those additional veto gates become
potential road speed bumps on the path toward deployment. We
think it is opportunity for more.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thank you.
And I think it is a fair debate, and so I just wanted to
bring that, moving forward.
So this would be for Professor Lyons. Many Kentuckians have
been able to gain access to the internet through the expansion
of wireless services.
In your testimony, you mentioned the bill we are discussing
today as technology neutral. I know you have mentioned
something about what the speed requirements would do to
threaten the ability to use innovative solutions to geographic,
topographic, or economic challenges to deploying broadband in
rural America.
Could you expand on how the speed requirements in the bill
would threaten that and, since you have touched on that
already, any other provisions in the bill that might affect
deployment in rural America?
Mr. Lyons. Yes. I think the primary concern with a minimum
speed requirement is you disqualify any technology that can't
meet that speed, which limits the number of bidders available
and therefore limits the areas you can serve and how cost
efficiently you can do so.
Now, if the speed limit is justified, right--you say the
bill sets 100 megabit per second download minimum--if there is
a justification for that like that is the amount that we think
is necessary for somebody to be connected, then that is totally
appropriate.
But if the proper amount is something less than that, then
it doesn't make sense to me to eliminate potential bidders who
can provide service in rural areas to connect unconnected
communities in ways that are going to give them the basic needs
that they need by setting an artificially high premise.
Now, you might be trying to futureproof the network, and I
think there is arguments for that. But if you are going to do
that, you need to recognize it is a trade-off.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thanks.
And I was also going to ask you about mapping. I know Cathy
McMorris--my friend from Washington just talked to you a little
bit about it. Is there anything you want to expand on that
about mapping and--because they probably do get overbuilding.
My area--I have lived in Bowling Green, which is a growing
progressive city in the mid-South, and even in our area because
of the development of building housing, even a county that has
gone from 75,000 to 130,000 people in the last 20 years, still
there are areas that homebuilders say, ``We can't build in
these areas because people aren't going to buy the kind of
houses we are going to build without access to broadband,''
even though it is right next to a really fast-growing,
developing city.
And then I have very rural counties, too, that don't have
that same issue. Unfortunately, the opposite of growth. So how
do--just talk about how mapping close to big cities and where
they are not being served or growing areas, but also just areas
that really need some help in moving forward.
Mr. Lyons. Well, one issue you have cited is sort of
outdated data, right--that data collected, no matter how
accurate, if it is 1 or 2 or 3 years old, it may not reflect
the situation on the ground at the time.
So I think one issue that a comprehensive mapping solution
needs to undertake is how often the data gets refreshed--how
often the carriers have to report back to the FCC where their
build-out maps are.
Mr. Guthrie. Do you think mapping should go down to Census
tracts, or how detailed should they be?
Mr. Lyons. So it depends on--Census tracts is useful, but
it doesn't always capture exactly what you are looking for. We
learned in the BDS proceeding, which was the Business Data
Services, is that sometimes you need to be down on almost like
a block-by-block level to understand which particular parcels
have deployment and which don't.
You can have a Census tract where most of the area is wired
and we might consider that wired, but there are still places
within the Census tract that are being left out.
Mr. Guthrie. So when you get down to the--I understand we
would love it even house to house, if you could. But the
question is you get to cost benefit of that.
Mr. Lyons. Right.
Mr. Guthrie. And so at what point--what do you think is
the----
Mr. Lyons. So the trade-off then becomes how expensive is
it to get that granular of data, and so the ancillary question
to that is what are the different ways you can try to get that
granular data.
If it is too expensive to get it through carrier reports,
can you crowd source it in a way that at least fills in some of
the information and then discount it appropriately to
understand the dirtiness of the source?
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Well, thank you, and that fills my
questions, and I will yield my time. I don't know if somebody
wants it. I will yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Mr. Tonko is next, recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chairman Pallone. I will mention two
statistics that I recently came across. First, China used more
cement between 2011 and 2013 than the United States used in the
entire 20th century. Second, China also has 421,000 electric
buses in operation. The United States has 300.
That being said, a sound economy begins with sound
infrastructure. We cannot afford to keep deferring maintenance
or construction of what we know will be needed for a
competitive and sustainable economy of the future. We have a
once-in-a-generation opportunity to invest and modernize our
aging infrastructure. We need a vision for what it can be, and
it must be a comprehensive approach. So, Chairman Pallone, I
want to commend you for the LIFT America Act. It lays out that
vision, and I want to highlight a few important provisions.
This bill makes major investments in our Nation's drinking
water. We made some great bipartisan progress last Congress
with the Drinking Water SRF reauthorization, but we also know
EPA has estimated the needs over the next 20 years at some $473
billion. If we continue to underinvest in these systems,
especially as we learn more about the extent of our challenges
from lead, PFAS, and other contaminants, providing clean,
reliable and affordable water will only become more difficult
for local governments.
So, Mayor Wahler and Ms. Eckdish, if Congress considers an
infrastructure package, how important is it that water
infrastructure is included?
Mr. Wahler. Everybody wants to live a long life, and you
have to drink water. So we have aging pipes throughout this
country. Towns and cities have limited capital resources out
there to take care of the issue. Any way or any additional
tools in the toolbox for municipalities and counties to replace
pipes that are suspect or contaminated is a great thing, and I
hope this committee moves along with this bill to do it that
way, because you can't survive without water. You need water.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Ms. Eckdish?
Ms. Eckdish. Yes, it is critically important. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. And, Mayor Wahler, do you think it is important
that Congress provide support to local governments for some of
these public health crises, including lead and PFAS
contamination?
Mr. Wahler. Well, I think it is safe to say over the last 5
years what we have seen around the country is, with all these
lead pipe poisoning crises going--and I hate to say it, we are
probably going to see some more of that. I think if we were
proactive in this room, working in collaborations with the
local officials out there, we might be able to be proactive and
prevent that from happening in the future.
Mr. Tonko. I am also pleased that the bill includes a
reauthorization of the Weatherization Assistance Program.
Buildings consume about 40 percent of our national energy
demand, and many low-income families cannot afford the upfront
costs for retrofits even when they are cost-effective
investments.
Mayor Wahler, how have weatherization funds helped low-
income families in your community?
Mr. Wahler. Well, I think in a lot of the--especially in
the Northeast--you have a lot of housing stock that is a lot
older, where traditionally the building codes weren't up to the
new weatherization standards. So when there are direct grants
out there that towns and cities can get their residents to
retrofit there, the communities--not only are they saving on
energy costs, but more importantly they are saving on the
carbon footprint.
Mr. Tonko. This bill also covers important aspects of the
transportation sector. We all know transportation is now the
largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United
States. We will not be able to adequately address the climate
crisis or accelerate the clean energy transition unless we help
finance an infrastructure build-out for cleaner vehicles.
Ms. Eckdish, I already mentioned China's embrace of
electric buses. Do you believe supporting zero-emissions
vehicle infrastructure will lead to more American jobs in
manufacturing as well as charging station installation and
maintenance?
Ms. Eckdish. Yes, and it is critical we do it the right
way. We need to make sure that across the board, from grid
modernization that is needed to facilitate EVs to the build-out
of electric charging infrastructure to the manufacturing of the
vehicles themselves, that we are harnessing that opportunity
here in the U.S. and with domestic content, labor standards, we
are investing and leading the world in the manufacture of those
vehicles and technologies.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And do you agree that these
investments will make our economy more competitive while
reducing our air pollution?
Ms. Eckdish. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Tonko. And, Mayor Wahler, if given the resources, will
local governments do more to ensure residents have access to
this type of charging infrastructure?
Mr. Wahler. You bet. I have to laugh. We are building a
community center right now, and when they found out there are
going to be charging stations there, the first question out of
a lot of the residents, ``Well, how much are you going to
charge for me to come charge up?''
Mr. Tonko. Well, LIFT America has great provisions on
transportational electrification and EV charging stations, and
I hope we can continue to work on a comprehensive clean
transportation package that will make sure we are reducing
pollution from this sector.
Finally, this bill has strong provisions to promote grid
modernization and resilience, but a 21st century electricity
system must also be flexible. We need to ensure we are able to
move electrons from where they are generated to where demand
exists, and so it is upgrading that grid, but also enhancing
storage, providing for the American intellect to carry us
through a new generation of storage opportunities so that we
can optimally utilize our gridding up with renewal power. With
that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Next is Mr. Olson, recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Olson. I thank the chair, and welcome to our six
witnesses. My question will be to you, Mr. Guith. It is going
to be about pipelines and energy infrastructure.
As you all know, right now this country is facing enhanced
U.S. global energy dominance. We are making more oil and
natural gas than almost the entire world. One example from
Texas, there is this place called the Permian Basin in West
Texas. It has been predicted by our government that within 2
years that one massive shale play in Texas will produce more
oil and natural gas than every country in the world except for
Saudi Arabia. That is more than Russia. That is more every OPEC
nation, and that is just one shale play right here in America.
Of course, this renaissance, this dominance will die if we
don't have the pipelines to get the oil, natural gas, and all
the things through the pipeline to where they have to go, to go
to the market. FERC is in charge of approving pipelines, and
they are having some problems with the excessive demands for
new pipelines, for LNG export plants. They are involved in all
that.
I have got a bill with Mike Doyle to address all their
problems with their employees. They are the best in the
business. They are getting poached by the private sector big
time because they can pay almost twice the salaries of the
Federal Government. We have a model to give them more pay to
keep them on board, it comes from the SEC. Again, Mike Doyle
and I have sponsored this bill.
My question is for you: Can you talk about why permitting
certainty is so important for America's energy dominance, and
does this apply to all technologies, not just oil but also LNG
exports, hydropower dams, anything, could this help? Any
comments about our bill and the challenge we have building
pipelines?
Mr. Guith. Absolutely. This stuff is not cheap. Whether you
are talking about utility-scale solar farms, whether you are
talking about multistate pipelines, I mean, many of them run in
the orders of billions of dollars. Even some of the LNG
facilities that we are seeing coming on line now are in excess
of $10 billion.
So if you are a project sponsor or, more importantly, you
are an investor who may invest in that project, you know, you
have to hedge it against the certainty and handicap it against
it not getting approved, even though there is a commercial
demand for that to happen. And that is true across all forms of
generation and energy use. And the more certainty, the more
unconstrained that capital will flow to those projects.
Mr. Olson. Next question is for you, Mr. Lyons. It is about
pipelines and all the communications necessary when it is a
disaster like a hurricane.
During the last Congress, I introduced H.R. 4845, which was
called the Connecting Communities Post Disaster Act. As you
know, disasters can destroy telecom systems at their moment of
the most highest, the greatest need. In Houston during
Hurricane Harvey, after Hurricane Ike came in about 10 years
before, we made a big effort to dig all our power lines and put
them and our communications lines underground. We did pretty
well, but you have to add, that information has to flow.
First responders have to have--where are the flooded roads,
where are the problems? Citizens who might be evacuated, OK,
you can't go this route, go this route. These communications
are a matter of life and death. And with hurricanes, the season
looming just 1 short week away, what do you think Congress
should do to get this process of making our telecommunication
system more viable and stronger during an absolute disaster
like a hurricane?
Mr. Lyons. No, I think it is absolutely right that
communications are absolutely vital. We saw it in addition to
in Texas, in Puerto Rico as well, right. The difficulty of
communicating with those who were affected made it a lot harder
to get them the relief they needed. I think things like
undergrounding, like emergency power backups can help. They are
expensive, right, and so it is always a trade-off.
How much are you going to invest now to harden the
infrastructure, and how much is it going to pay off in the
event of a natural disaster? The provisions that are being
available for Next Generation 9-1-1, I think, are going to be
significantly helpful in that respect in figuring out how to
not just modernize the first responder network but harden it as
well.
Mr. Olson. Thank you. My time has expired. One PSA, public
service announcement: The Houston Astros are in first place of
the Western Division of the American League of baseball. I
yield back.
Mr. Lyons. The Red Sox are not proud of how much they
contributed to that.
Mr. Olson. Three games. We won three up there in Fenway,
you all won one. We will get you back in the playoffs.
Mr. Pallone. Thanks to the gentleman. Mr. Welch, recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to thank you and our other chairs, Mr.
Rush, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Doyle, and Mr. Tonko. This is a great
bill, and it has got some of the provisions in the HOMES Act
that I have cosponsored with Mr. McKinley. And this is such a
good, ambitious bill I am ready to move the bill.
Mr. Pallone. Yes, well.
Mr. Welch. And I am really quite----
Mr. Pallone. Do you got any cash?
Mr. Welch. This is the ambitious--all right, let's go. But
we have been talking about infrastructure for so long, it is
time to do it. We all know we need it. I am really excited
about the HOMES Act that is in here. I am excited about the
Smart Buildings that I coauthored with Mr. Kinzinger. But every
one of us on the committee, I think, has provisions in here.
And the witnesses are all here advocating things that we think
make an awful lot of sense.
So my hope is--and I think all of our hopes is--that we are
actually going to move on this bill and push it out. We always
have the challenge of how do you pay for it, but last I knew
potholes don't fix themselves. And I have indicated a
willingness to support just about any revenue measure that will
make this happen, because I think at the end of the day, as
much as there is always resistance to paying for things, our
constituents know that they don't fix themselves.
And once you start seeing the benefits of, say, broadband
build-out or clean energy options or the grid resilience or
fixing up the water systems, then people see that that is going
to benefit them, and their willingness to accept it is enhanced
enormously.
Let me start with Mayor Wahler. Are you OK with us coming
up with a way of paying for this? I mean, you have a hard job
right on the front lines.
Mr. Wahler. Well, Congressman Welch, one of the big things,
anytime that the Federal Government can help. We are not asking
you to pay a hundred percent. Towns and cities already pay
about 80 to 90 percent of everything that is going on.
Mr. Welch. Exactly.
Mr. Wahler. If there is even down payment money on long-
term plans for communities or for when we have to go for long-
term bonding for such improvements, that is a good thing. So
when we go for the financial markets, if we could show that
there is a consistent basis that there will be grant money
targeted towards that, that it makes things easier to put----
Mr. Welch. Right. No, I appreciate that. I met with eight
of our mayors in Vermont, and they said pretty much what you
said, and they vary in their political points of view.
Mr. Wahler. Yes.
Mr. Welch. But they know that they have incredible needs,
limited tax base, huge burdens on property taxpayers, and the
Federal Government has to help. So thank you very much.
Ms. Clyburn, it is good to have you back.
Ms. Clyburn. Thank you.
Mr. Welch. And broadband build-out is part of this. It is
absolutely essential, as you know and I think many of us here
know, that rural America is getting written off if we don't
have the same high-speed internet that urban America has. So if
we are successful in getting broadband infrastructure passed in
this bill, how do we future-proof, because I don't want us to
get a one-time deal where then we are constantly playing catch-
up. Can you comment on that?
Ms. Clyburn. So, with respect to my fellow panelists, I say
we go big. I say minimally, you know, a hundred megabits. I say
that because not only do our communities need it and they will
need it in the future, it would keep us competitive
internationally.
One thing, if you will allow me a couple of minutes, in
2012, China, because that was mentioned once, had 20.3 million
homes that had fiber, you know, connected, fiber connected to
the home. Today they have almost 400 million. If we are going
to stay competitive, if we are going to give our communities
and the individuals in our communities the tools that they need
to stay competitive domestically and internationally, we have
to go big.
Mr. Welch. OK, thank you.
And I want to ask Ms. Eckdish from the BlueGreen Alliance,
first of all, I think the BlueGreen Alliance is so good. We are
getting people together--who, sometimes competing points of
view--to do something that makes sense for all of us, so thank
you. And your advocacy, the BlueGreen Alliance, is really
essential to the potential of us being successful.
You talked about energy efficiency in public buildings. How
could that help us not just to reduce carbon emissions, but who
does the work on that?
Ms. Eckdish. Sure, thank you for the question. Energy
efficiency does have tremendous environmental impacts. It has
tremendous job impacts as well. As I mentioned earlier, we have
over 2 million workers today in energy efficiency. Those are
construction workers installing HVAC, other energy efficiency
upgrades.
It is also workers in the manufacturing sector. We have
almost 300,000 workers that are today manufacturing energy-
efficient component parts. So there is tremendous potential.
There are already good jobs today in the energy efficiency
sector and tremendous opportunity for expansion.
Mr. Welch. Great. I see my time is up, but I want to also
thank the Chamber for the tremendous work that it has been
doing in this area. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Welch. Next is Mr. McKinley,
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, as I read
through this bill, you reminded me of a kid in a candy store.
You could have had anything you wanted in this legislation. You
are the chairman of the most powerful committee in Congress.
Your party is in control of the House. But then you went into
the candy shop, and you left with a stick of gum.
We have the opportunity to do something bold and robust on
energy infrastructure, but this committee so far is aiming low.
This is the Energy and Commerce Committee. After 5 months in
the majority, is this really the best that this committee can
do on energy infrastructure? Yes, we have aspects of modest
initiatives in broadband, drinking water, in healthcare and
brownfields, and some of that I will support with you, and I
realize there may be jurisdictional limitations.
But with all the hype about what we need in a comprehensive
infrastructure bill, why haven't we sought a bolder, broader,
more comprehensive bipartisan approach to this? But not one,
not when there is just 31 Democrats on the bill and no
Republicans. There are numerous bipartisan bills that could
have been included in this, the 48A Tax Credit by Collin
Peterson, the Gas Turbine Efficiency, Paul Tonko's, or Scott
Peters' the USE IT Act.
The LIFT America Act was billed as a sweeping legislation
to combat climate change, and yet it glaringly omits
authorizing energy research to produce innovation and solutions
and research. Research including carbon capture and storage,
gas turbine efficiency, methane hydrates, battery storage,
fugitive methane emissions, alternative to lithium-ion
batteries and cobalt, rare-earth elements, wireless power
transmission, hydrogen fuel cells, small nuclear and modular
coal plants.
Keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, America currently spends more
money on eating potato chips than it does on researching
energy. Mr. Chairman, we had a chance to put together a package
that you wanted. You had the keys to the candy store. So let's
be bold and include some bipartisan measures that gives this
bill a chance to pass the Senate and be signed into law. The
American people deserve better.
To win the big game, Michael Jordan knew he had to have the
confidence to take that last shot, that game-winning shot when
he had the chance. Instead of taking that risk, this committee
appears to be passing the ball. It is a lost opportunity.
So, Mr. Guith, if I can ask you on this, you mentioned
Scott Peters' USE IT Act in your testimony. Would more
innovation and research be beneficial to addressing the
infrastructure problems we have on energy and particularly as
it relates to combating the climate change challenges that
face--would energy and research be helpful?
Mr. Guith. Most definitely. I mean, climate change is
inherently a technology issue, but it is also an infrastructure
issue. And there is significant scientific consensus that
specific technologies are most likely--no guarantee--to be key
to addressing, to lowering emissions and ultimately preventing
emissions globally.
One of them is carbon capture utilization and storage. In
order--one end of that obviously is capturing the carbon, which
in and of itself is a challenge, but we are seeing significant
innovation happening there. But at the other end is what you do
with it, so you need to have the infrastructure to move it and
then to ultimately sequester it geologically or otherwise
permanently.
And the USE IT Act is a great first step in pairing with
the fiscal policy that Congress has put in place in order to
make it easier to site and permit those projects and also
incentivize them. And that is a key step forward for U.S.
innovation that will hopefully lead the globe in a move towards
a much-less-emitting and ultimately not-emitting economy.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. I mean, there are so many things
on capturing the carbon. We get oxycombustion. We get chemical
looping. There are so many things we could do, but we have a
chance in this bill and we omitted it. We could have authorized
more research to go for it. So again, I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Next is Mr. Loebsack, recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Loebsack. Well, thank you, Chairman Pallone and Ranking
Member Walden. I thank the witnesses for being here today. I do
want to echo my friend Peter Welch's comments about what a
great bill this. I really do believe it is.
And just, if I might, to respond to my colleague Mr.
McKinley, I would like to see more in this too. There is a lot
more out there that we could be doing. Not to defend the
particular approach that we have here, but I will say that
often in this body and over in the Senate, the bigger you make
a bill, the more targets there are for the opposition and the
harder, therefore, it is to get it passed. But I am certainly
open. I don't want to, you know, I can't speak for the chairman
or the ranking member, but I am open to adding some more things
to it too, if we can get bipartisan support for that. There are
a lot of great ideas out there.
One of the things, one of the ideas that I look forward to
discussing further is a bill that I have worked closely with
Representative Mullin, Markwayne Mullin, the Communications
Jobs Training Act. And this bill would provide funding to
develop training programs, workforce programs, for construction
and maintenance for these communication towers.
I visited one of these just recently. I didn't go up as
high as a couple of our Commissioners. In fact, I didn't go up
at all because those things are awfully damn tall. But I put
all the equipment on, and it was really quite fascinating. We
are clearly going to need more people to do these jobs down the
road to construct more of these towers.
And in conjunction with the tower infrastructure we need of
course broadband infrastructure, and that has been talked a lot
about today. I am really happy to see that this bill includes
$40 billion for this purpose. I am from Iowa, a rural district
of 24 counties, probably 12 or 13 thousand square miles. We
have a lot of problems there when it comes to rural broadband.
And I have been for now a number of years raising the issue
related to the poor quality of the FCC's maps, which has been
talked about already today.
I am glad this bill does start with maps that Congress has
funded at the NTIA the last few years, and I am glad that the
mapping section requires the FCC to consider publicly available
broadband information and that the challenge process minimizes
the regulatory burdens. That is really something that I think
is important.
And, Commissioner Clyburn, I would like you to speak to
that issue. Why is it critical that any challenge process be
conducted with the least burden, the least burden on customers
and those doing the challenging?
Ms. Clyburn. Because when you see something wrong, it
should not be a heartache to point it out. It is as simple as
that. And so I am glad you pointed that out, and I am proud to
brag--Mr. Duncan has already left--that my State will be a part
of that publicly available, you know, mapping universe, because
it is producing its own broadband mapping plan. And so, in
addition to that, Microsoft has, you know, an infrastructure
for you to reference. It is an all-of-the-above approach,
because again all eyes are not going to see everything, and it
is important for us to know what is there.
Mr. Loebsack. And make that challenge process as
transparent and as easy as possible as well.
Ms. Clyburn. Absolutely, absolutely.
Mr. Loebsack. Because there are a lot of other different
sources of information out there that we ought to be taking
advantage of. And I will just mention, 2 times ago I think it
was, when Chairman Pai was here, he--maybe 3 times ago--he
mentioned that he had been traveling in Northwest Iowa, and he
had a lot of dropped calls and lot of problems up in that part
of the State. I am in the southeast part, but I grew up in the
northwest part.
But all over Iowa, all over rural America, we have
problems. And it says that we have good service in those areas
if you look at the FCC map, but it is simply not the case. My
view is we can't move forward if we don't have good mapping in
the first--we have to know where the problems are if we are
going to solve the problems, and right now we don't have good--
--
Ms. Clyburn. And I am proud to brag that I was part of
pushing in the Mobility Fund, Phase I and Phase II.
Mr. Loebsack. Yes, you were. And thank you for your
service.
Ms. Clyburn. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Loebsack. I really appreciate that, Commissioner.
Look, I am very proud that my home State of Iowa is a
leader in renewable energy and energy efficiency. I often talk
about wind energy accounting for nearly 40 percent of our
electricity in the State of Iowa. And this is a key moment for
the committee to play a role in addressing climate change, and
this bill does make several key investments for our energy
future, although I am willing to entertain more possibilities.
It does include my bill, the Renew America's Schools Act,
which will help schools modernize and make critical energy
efficient upgrades. It will create jobs, a really good thing,
right? It will reduce emissions. It will produce long-term cost
savings for our schools. This is something I have been trying
to get through for a number of years as well, all while
providing our students with top-notch learning environments.
We know that the environment in which our students learn
and our educators teach can have an immense impact on the
quality of education our children receive, and that makes, I
think, this a win-win situation all the way around for workers,
for students, for parents, for educators, and our
administrators as well.
Ms. Eckdish, in your testimony you mentioned the importance
of upgrading our Nation's inefficient and unhealthy school
buildings as part of a smart infrastructure package. I know you
are not an expert on education as such, but can you speak
generally about the impact investing in modern and efficient
school facilities would have on the health of our students and
the quality of their learning environments, not to mention the
jobs obviously associated with this?
Ms. Eckdish. Yes, thank you for the question. And thank you
for raising schools. We absolutely think they should be a key
part of the infrastructure discussion, and I would be remiss if
I didn't say we strongly support the Rebuild America's Schools
Act, which has broad support across Congress as well.
We know as you said that investing in schools has
tremendous impacts on students, teachers, other staff at these
facilities from the health of their learning environments.
Schools are--we have many schools with asbestos, lead, a host
of health issues. We also know that making energy-efficient
upgrades can save schools money that they can then reinvest in
their schools, so there are clear economic and environmental
benefits. There are also tremendous job benefits as well on
both the construction side and, again, on the manufacturing
side as well.
Mr. Loebsack. Yes, I taught at a college. My wife taught
second grade for over 30 years. I know that from a curricular
standpoint too we can even incorporate some of the changes that
maybe did take place in a particular school setting into the
curriculum, and maybe even some of those students who go home
and tell their parents about how great green schools are and we
could spread the good word that way as well.
Commissioner Clyburn, I know you already did talk about a
future-proof rural America. Do you want to elaborate at all? I
know you mentioned a hundred meg, for example.
Ms. Clyburn. Well, again, I think we should start there and
aim up, because, you know, this is an international race. And
is it a race for people to be able to take advantage of
telemedicine and other opportunities? You are going to need
speed. You are going to need fiber. You are going to need those
investments to ensure that that happens.
We cannot afford to look through today's lens, a 2019 lens.
We need to look far into the future, and we don't want to come
back here another 5 or 6 years from now. ``Groundhog Day'' was
a great movie, but not, you know, the way in terms of
implementing policies and procedures.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you so much. Thanks to all of you. And
I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Mr. Griffith is next.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it
greatly, and I appreciate talking about rebuilding American
schools in many of my counties, or in a few of my counties. The
counties are having a hard time, and I just want to make sure
there is enough flexibility in there that, you know, we are
trying to keep the rain from coming in. If we can sneak away to
do that and put some solar panels up there, I am all for it
because that is the way we can have a win-win. But I did want
to mention that.
Mr. Lyons, I want to appreciate you talking about
crowdsourcing, because as Ms. Clyburn pointed out, sometimes--
or somebody did--that maps don't always reflect--the FCC maps
aren't always accurate. I can assure you the folks in my
district can tell you exactly where they do and don't have
service, because, you know.
And what is amazing is, in some of those counties that are
having a harder time--I represent 22 counties and seven
independent cities in the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is a big
rural district. Some of the counties are having a hard time and
they don't have service, and so we need to do something about
it. But what is surprising, and this is where the maps won't
show it, I have people who don't have service within a mile or
two outside of the town of Blacksburg, Virginia, home of
Virginia Tech.
Now, Blacksburg is one of the most wired communities out
there, but I have people who work there who don't have service
at their homes. And so--and I like your approach, Mr. Lyons,
when you said in your written testimony that, instead of
talking about the megabits or the gig or the, you know, the
upload and the download speeds, let's put it in terms of what
they can get. So how much do we need in those areas to make
sure the kids can do their homework?
Mr. Lyons. Appreciate the question, thank you. Yes, so we
can just start just by figuring out what are the things that we
need to guarantee that anybody should be able to do online,
right. The examples I gave in my testimony, Skype, which is
two-way video conferencing, required about 1.2 megabits per
second. Netflix calls for about 4 megabits per second in order
to get high-definition feeds.
So a 25-megabit per second would support both Skype and
multiple Netflix streams with space to spare. Now, Netflix will
tell you it requires 25 megabits per second for their big 4K
download, but I am not sure we should be in the business of
subsidizing the ability to download ``Orange is the New Black''
in super 4K rather than just high definition.
Mr. Griffith. Now, correct me if I am wrong because I am
here to learn. That is why I love committee hearings. If you
can do the Netflix, the regular stuff at 5, then that means
that most of my kids could do their homework all over the
district if we had at least the 25 or the 5. Is that correct?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, I think that is right. My son says 25 is a
fair compromise between what the bare minimum would be and what
would be a reasonable amount, right. So I don't think it is
enough to just say, OK, you can do your homework and it is
going to be a little bit slow, but you know, you want to make
sure you are giving a little bit of a comfortable margin.
Twenty-five gets you there. By the time you get to about 100
megabits per second, you are talking about things like, I don't
know, 3D holographic two-way communication and stuff like that
which, you know, it may be the wave of the future----
Mr. Griffith. Great.
Mr. Lyons [continuing]. I am not sure that is where we
should be investing all of our money now.
Mr. Griffith. Well, and I would tell you my feeling is,
step one, let's make sure everybody's got the 25. Then once we
get there, where everybody in the country has that, then yes, I
am all for moving it up and making those speeds faster as we go
across.
One of my counties recently has announced through their
telephone company that they are going to go actually to a gig
download and 500 upload which is just great, and they plan to
have it all rolled out by 2021. And they are putting the
infrastructure in and they have gotten some grant money from
us, and I think that is great. But then I worry about those
folks on the other side of the line who may not have anything.
And so, I want to make sure they get service, so I do
appreciate that.
Mr. Lyons. Thank you.
Mr. Griffith. I want to talk a little bit about hydro. My
colleagues have talked about that some. I had a bill and, Mr.
Guith, if you could help me with this. I had a bill where we
could do closed loop inside mines, and I thought that was
really interesting. But recently, I visited a national historic
landmark building in Wytheville, Virginia. The dam has been
certified. It is fine, everything is great. The sluice is still
there, if I am using the right terminology. The only thing they
don't have any more are turbines.
It would seem to me that if we could figure out a way to
cut through the red tape and reactivate this dam--Ms. McMorris
Rodgers mentioned that I think only 3 percent of the dams have
hydro capabilities--they have the spot to put them in. The
owner is not opposed to that. He got it on the National
Registry because he bought it and it was falling--not falling
down, but it was just in bad repair and he has fixed the
building up.
What can we do? Because, you know, he indicated that it
might be hard to sell that electricity. He doesn't know how to
do it. How can we make folks who actually have a dam that
already is sitting there that was used a hundred years ago to
make electricity, do it? And am I correct that having a lot of
these small dams in operation would actually help improve the
resiliency of our grid?
Mr. Guith. Yes, absolutely. The reliability that a base
load like hydro brings is incredibly important because it is
able to cycle. So as you bring more renewables into the grid
that are variable and come and go based on the availability of
the sun or the wind, having resources like peaking gas or hydro
is incredibly important to follow that load as it fluctuates so
we can keep the grid stable and ensure that you have that
reliability.
Ultimately, to your question as far as how to make it
happen, it helps to have State sponsorship, but ultimately it
is a NEPA question and there are a lot of folks who don't want
to see those dams turned into hydroelectric generators for
environmental reasons. And I think that the Pacific Northwest
from the Washington border all the way through California has
shown success after success where the hydroelectric generation
can coexist with the environmental concerns.
Mr. Griffith. Let's work together. I see my time is way
over, and I need to yield back. But thank you.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. The gentlewoman from Delaware, Ms.
Blunt Rochester, recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman
Pallone, first of all, I would like to congratulate you on this
comprehensive and important legislation. I also want to thank
the witnesses. This was a really great panel of witnesses. And
commend my subcommittee chairs and members who were part of the
collective leadership on the issues that are included in the
LIFT America Act. This legislation to me impacts our health, it
impacts our education, our security, our economy, our
competitiveness as a country and also my State, but ultimately
the planet. And so, I am proud to be a cosponsor.
And I want to ask a few questions about broadband maps and
coverage, but first I just want to clarify something between
Professor Lyons and Ms. Clyburn on the minimum standard. Now if
I am understanding this correctly, Professor Lyons, you are
positing that 25 would be fine for the things that are kind of
the minimum things that are needed. Did I hear that correctly?
And then just yes or no.
Mr. Lyons. Yes, that is right.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. OK. And then, Ms. Clyburn, I thought I
heard you mention 100. Can you elaborate a little bit on why,
because I understood what you said that you don't need to be
streaming, you know, ``Game of Thrones,'' but what I want to
understand from Ms. Clyburn is why she says a hundred.
Ms. Clyburn. Well, I will just simply say this. We need to
do this one time. And if you want to do this one time, you need
to future-proof it. And to future-proof it, you need to look to
the future and look to your international competitors in terms
of what they are doing. There is no one internationally that we
are observing and following that is doing anything less than a
hundred megabits.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you for sharing that. That is
really particularly important for me, because one of the areas
I am focused on is the future of work. And it is really the
future of how we are living and it is happening to us right
now, and so I don't want to see us start behind. Let's start
ahead and be bold.
I would like to focus on the coverage maps. First and in
particular, if we could focus on, you know, the committee's
prioritization of unserved areas and the benchmark of the 25
megabits per second. And I am glad the bill does not rely on
the FCC's inaccurate Form 477 data. For example, FCC's coverage
map suggests that the entirety of Delaware has at least one
provider that provides at least 25 megabits per second.
But I know that that is not true, and I hear from many of
my constituents every day that they are--and stakeholders--that
they are in areas that are dead zones, both in urban areas as
well as rural. People might not know Delaware also has a huge
rural community as well.
Ms. Clyburn, again thank you so much for your testimony,
but also thank you for your former service, public service at
the FCC. And I was struck by your testimony, because you
mentioned the need to improve these maps, and I think it makes
sense for the FCC to look to the more trusted, publicly
available data as you suggest.
Can you talk about what additional recommendations you
would have for the committee for both improving the coverage
maps and utilizing a fairer and more accurate process for
getting at those communities that are unserved as defined by
the LIFT America Act?
Ms. Clyburn. In addition, I say that the FCC could use its
subscription information, you know, to look and compare. That
seems really intuitive, but it is not being done. And I guess--
I don't want to be repetitive. I think that is the only thing
that, other than the form, they need to go ahead to order on
the reforms and when it comes to Form 477.
One person having service in an area should not the whole
area be considered coverage. That is a problem that makes no
sense. I don't know what type of map that is, but it is not the
map that is bringing and closing divides in America.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. It looks like that is consistent
across the panel, I would say.
And, Mr. Wahler, I am going to switch really quickly in the
last 40 seconds to drinking water, the drinking water title.
Mr. Wahler, one of the issues that my State of Delaware
consistently has is maintaining the drinking water
infrastructure that we already have built. By some estimates,
Delaware is a hundred million dollars short on an annual basis.
Can you talk about why it is important to continue to invest in
the drinking water infrastructure?
Mr. Wahler. Thank you, Congresswoman. Everybody knows that,
you know, anytime you are digging underground, it costs a heck
of a lot more money than above ground, and that is why the
large city and the expense of municipalities and counties such
as your State have because of the nature where it has to be
buried under the frost line.
But, more importantly, is there is a lot of extensions
where it goes into the schools or it goes into your residential
neighborhood. It is all encompassing, and it is a very costly
measure. And, for instance, if you are only doing $10 million a
year and you have $100 million worth of infrastructure, that is
not--you are just not getting there where you need to get
there.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you. My time has expired.
Mr. Pallone. Next is Mr. Long, recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my oldest daughter,
our oldest daughter, Barbara, and my oldest daughter turns 33
years old today. She is a pediatrician back in Springfield,
Missouri, where I hail from. When she turned 25, 8 years ago
today, we had an EF5 tornado in Joplin, Missouri, that killed
161 people in a town of 50,000, so everyone knew someone that
had perished in that horrific event.
Yesterday we had tornadoes that touched down in my district
all across Southwest Missouri. Over in Southeast Missouri,
Jason Smith's district, a lot of damage from tornadoes and that
caused our Governor, Mike Parson, to declare a state of
emergency. Severe weather events like these are, unfortunately,
way too common in what we call tornado alley in my neck of the
woods, and communities are constantly impacted.
There is money in this bill to establish a grant program at
the Department of Energy to provide money to States that
enhance electric infrastructure resiliency, reliability, and
security. The utility industry also spends significant sums of
money each year on efforts to make their infrastructure more
resilient. I want to make sure that this program is not
duplicative and does not hamper investments at the private
sector in these capabilities.
And for you, Mr. Guith, how does this bill ensure money and
resources are spent wisely on energy infrastructure resilience
and not harming the investment by private companies on this
work?
Mr. Guith. I think it makes great strides in addressing the
issue and trying to integrate by deferring to some extent to
the Secretary. But in one specific example, which I mentioned
in my written testimony on the Transformer Reserve, Congress
challenged the Department of Energy to look at the need for one
back when the FAST Act was passed.
Ultimately, Oak Ridge National Lab did a deep-dive
analysis, and Department of Energy came back and recommended to
Congress that there does not need to be a separate reserve
because industry, because of its own responsibilities to its
ratepayers and its customers, had established such redundancies
in reserves already.
And so, we would recommend within the context of the LIFT
Act that the monies that are addressed to go to the Transformer
Reserve be instead focused on the research within the
components, which the act also addresses, which is where we
need more research in order to make the equipment that we do
have or the equipment tomorrow that much more resilient against
severe weather issues.
Mr. Long. OK, thank you.
And, Mr. Lyons, when it comes to the Broadband
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, there is nothing
included to address overbuilding or coordination language. The
committee spent considerable time last Congress legislating
against overbuilding and promoting coordination amongst
government entities. Will this legislation present a setback
there?
Mr. Lyons. I think more explicit language about
coordination would be helpful. It helps that the money is being
invested in the Federal Communications Commission, because it
has its hand in the other pie, so it has the ability to
coordinate in the various broadband reach-out initiatives that
we have. But it would be helpful if Congress provided more
explicit direction.
Mr. Long. OK, thank you.
And expanding internet access in rural areas is a top
priority for many on this committee, and we need to make sure
we are all doing what we can to fix this problem. I have been
working with Senator Marsha Blackburn, who was a former member
of this committee, a lot of you remember, on a broadband
infrastructure bill, the Internet Exchange Act.
The Internet Exchange Act focuses on improving broadband
infrastructure in rural America by promoting more internet
exchange facilities around the United States. I look forward to
working with this committee in ways we can address the need to
strengthen internet access in rural and other underserved
areas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Long. Mr. Soto is next.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is pretty clear that
America is eager for 21st century infrastructure upgrade. We
see it all throughout our districts, both sides of the aisle.
And, you know, we are the most productive, most powerful nation
in the world, yet this seems to continue to be a problem. We
are at GDP of 21.5 trillion with China quickly gaining at 14.2
trillion, and I kind of--we have to imagine what we would be
able to do if we actually had a modern infrastructure to work
with and what that would mean for the future of our economy.
And it seems to me the biggest hurdle has been political
dysfunction over the past couple years, particularly with
regard to how to pay for it. We have seen no increase in the
gas tax since 1993. Tax cuts for the rich and big corporations
blew a $2.3 trillion hole in the revenue outlook for the next
10 years. Infrastructure proposals were only 25 percent of the
Federal funding where it is going towards it, which failed from
the start.
Even the term ``Infrastructure Week'' has become a running
joke sometimes in Washington. So the big question, then, I ask
my committee members in both sides of the aisle is, so what are
we going to do? Are we going to do this, or what? Are we going
to actually put forward a major infrastructure project, or are
we just going to sit around and say we are going to and then
never do with the revenue issues that we have to?
I want to start with rural broadband and broadband in
general. I represent areas not only in suburban Orlando, but in
rural Osceola County and Polk County. And I was really struck
by a really wise member of the U.S. House, Majority Whip
Clyburn, who told me a story about his district, where most of
the kids in a class that he recently went to failed because the
homework was being given online and they didn't have access to
it. And he used that to talk about this, how rural communities
are falling behind in technology.
So, Commissioner Clyburn, it would be great to hear from
you. How important is the LIFT Act and broadband internet
build-out across the country to rural communities in closing
that productivity and education gap?
Ms. Clyburn. This will address the most pervasive gaps that
I have seen in my regulatory lifetime. It will serve to better
equalize those communities without. It will recalibrate and
reshape the narrative when it comes to what is possible, what
is accessible, and address what is needed. And it is very
targeted. It is seeking to go to areas with the most need, not
where the business case is not being made. It decouples from
that, and I think it is very important. The role of government
is to be proactive in areas where the private sector is not, or
is not incented to do so. This does that.
Mr. Soto. And being the great equalizer. So thank you for
that, Commissioner.
Ms. Clyburn. And I agree, he is a pretty great guy.
Mr. Soto. He is a pretty great guy.
Ms. Eckdish, how important is Davis-Bacon in ensuring that
we have both a boost to our economy and fair wages and that we
really get the job done right?
Ms. Eckdish. Thank you for the question. It is critically
important. It makes sure that, as workers are doing the work to
repair our infrastructure, that they are being paid a family-
supporting wage. So it is critically important, and there are a
number of areas in the LIFT America Act that include Davis-
Bacon in a number of areas where it could be expanded.
Mr. Soto. And now, according to EPA, transportation is the
biggest emitter of CO2 emissions at 29 percent
versus 28 percent for electricity, and that is even numbers
from 2 years ago. So does this transportation, the aspects of
the transportation package that are in this bill, will that
help then the curve of CO2 emissions in the
transportation sector, particularly electric cars and things of
that nature?
Ms. Eckdish. Yes, I think electric vehicles are a key part
of how we bend that curve, coupled with investments in transit,
strong fuel economy standards. But EVs will be a key part of
how we tackle emissions from the vehicle sector. And this bill
takes a significant step toward the expansion of the EV
infrastructure and what we----
Mr. Soto. Thank you.
And Mr. Guith, or ``Gueeth''--sorry if I am mispronouncing
your name--does the U.S. Chamber believe that the America's
economy is being held back by an aging infrastructure?
Mr. Guith. Absolutely. We have been leading the charge for
the better part of a couple decades, and we know that there is
political support there, it is just getting apparently folks
into a room and making it happen, which seems to be difficult
today.
Mr. Soto. Do you think there are any revenue sources that
the business community would be supportive of in our quest to
get an infrastructure package together?
Mr. Guith. We are supportive of wherever it comes from,
more or less. I mean, we have proposed increasing the fuel use
fee, but we have said that, look, we are open to other ideas.
In fact, we held a contest very recently to get other ideas. We
don't think that is the only way. In fact, we probably need
several ways, but it is certainly one of the most logical ways
given, to your point earlier, that it hasn't been touched since
1993 while some 35 States have raised their own State revenues
through fuel use fees. And it is untapped. The Highway Trust
Fund continues to dwindle, and our infrastructure is aging.
Mr. Soto. Thank you.
Mr. Pallone. Did the gentleman yield back?
Mr. Soto. Oh yes, sorry.
Mr. Pallone. OK, thank you. Mr. Bucshon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just want
to--well, I know I am kind of late in the game here because I
am down the dais, but I am going to--a couple subjects that I
really touched upon and I will just say briefly, rural Indiana,
we need broadband. You can't have schools. You can't have
economic investment.
And I think many people have talked to that. I am not going
to spend much more time on it, but we need broadband
infrastructure in rural Indiana. The U.S. Energy Information
Administration--yes, there is such an agency--recently reported
that 32 dams currently that do not generate electricity are
planned to be converted to hydroelectric dams in the next few
years.
And the reason I point that out is because last year,
Congress passed and the President signed the American Water
Infrastructure Act of 2018. And many of you may or may not know
that legislation that I was involved in and Senators on the
Senate side were involved in streamlined the process for
converting nonhydroelectric dams to hydroelectric dams through
FERC.
It doesn't eliminate any environmental review, and this was
bipartisan. Both sides agreed to all of this. But through FERC
there is now a 2-year process when you want to get approval to
convert a nonhydroelectric dam into hydroelectric power. So if
people right now should be looking at that, and I think there
is going to be a lot of investment over the next 5 to 10 years
in this particular process.
As was mentioned, it is a consistent, sustainable, clean-
energy source that Canada utilizes, our Pacific Northwest
utilizes and, believe it or not, in Southwest Indiana there are
six dams we could convert. And so, I just wanted to point that
out, that that is very important. I mean, I am an all-of-the-
above energy supporter, and I think, just like your personal
investment portfolio, we should diversify our energy portfolio
and make sure we are not putting all our eggs in one basket.
With that being said, the legislation before us I don't see
is supporting all-of-the-above energy, and that is in the area,
the absence of fossil fuel, energy research development, and
innovation. And that was mentioned, I think, by Mr. McKinley
also. I believe it is critical that we continue to encourage
strong public-private partnerships in the ongoing advancements
of technological innovations in the fossil fuel energy area on
our grid today.
And as electrical utilities connect to more intermittent
renewable energy into the electrical system, there is a growing
need for new technologies to ensure reliable and affordable
power, and I think the Europeans are experiencing this most as
we speak with untenable energy costs, particularly in Germany.
So, Mr. Guith, can you speak to the role of the ongoing
innovation that--and you may have mentioned this earlier, but
what is needed to ensure spending decisions don't lock in
practices that impede new innovative technologies, particularly
in the fossil fuel space?
Mr. Guith. Yes, I think that is a great question, thank
you. Twofold. One, a greater commitment from Congress to
spending on energy innovation. As a former DOE employee, I
realize it is an incredible asset to the country, but
unfortunately it has 535 constituents up here and it tries to
be everything to all of them, where we know that there are
specific technologies that every scientific community that has
looked at this are most likely going to be required to address
climate change globally.
And so, we have been working with Mmbers of Congress to
come up with some approaches with DOE to maybe concentrate a
little bit more on those technologies with some specific
metrics and goals and demonstrations to get there. And I think
that is the greatest path forward to developing those--that
innovation that we need.
Mr. Bucshon. And I will make a quick comment on that
because you realize that we are, what, 20 percent of the
world's CO2 emissions, roughly. China, India, or--
China is the biggest. It is unlikely, in my view, that they are
going to convert to clean energy sources as quickly as America
has. Since 2005, we have reduced emissions more than any other
country in the world, and it is not really close. We are going
to continue to do that.
So I think in this area of fossil fuel--and some of us on
the panel will disagree, obviously--but in fossil fuel,
thinking that the rest of the world may not get to where we may
get with renewables, if we have some innovation that is
transferable to other countries that they could use that we
could make economically feasible for those countries and they
begin to pick that up, I think then we could have a global--our
leadership in that area could have a global impact. That is my
personal view.
Also, expanding a little bit on that, Mr. Guith. When the
Chamber reviews some of the programs in the bill that reflect
efforts to support the build-out of renewable infrastructure,
do you all look at and monitor what happens with the electrical
rates and what happens when they go up?
Mr. Guith. Yes, most definitely. I mean, we look at the
impacts on both the generators as well as the consumers. We
represent both. And, frankly, a hundred percent of the economy
is a consumer, so when rates go down it benefits even if it
doesn't necessarily benefit the upstream generator. And we
analyze it with our members and we consult with them and try
and come up with the best policy and triangulate where the
business community is.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes, and I would agree with that because,
again, if you look at the European experience, particularly in
Germany, where the costs of energy are--and I don't have the
graph in front of me--are roughly 3 times what they are, on
average, in America. As particularly I see it for our seniors
and for our lower-income rural, in areas in my district that
would be rural American. Other people's districts that could be
urban America. Honestly, different locations, very similar
problems. I could see the cost aspect really causing us a lot
of trouble if we don't continue to innovate across the
spectrum, and so I am hopeful that we can do that.
Again, I would like to point out I am an all-of-the-above
energy person. I think we should innovate and advance
technology all across, and that includes fossil fuels. Because
I do think looking at the world and the fossil fuel use, that
is an area potentially if we could, for example, commercialize
carbon capture like we are in Houston, for example, in the
Houston area, and find ways to use the CO2 or to
store the CO2 underground. Worldwide, I just feel
like that could have such a dramatic impact.
And the last thing is also in the area of recycling and
looking at the entire life cycle of renewable energy,
particularly in the solar panel space. I am beginning to look
at the entire life cycle of those panels because 25, 30 years
from now we are going to have to figure out what to do with
those. And at this point in America we landfill all of the end-
of-life for that, and I think most people know that.
And so, the impact that has on the environment with some of
the heavy metals like lead and other things that are in it are
going to be dramatic if we don't look at how we deal with the
end-of-life solar panels 25 years from now. I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Next is the gentleman from Arizona,
Mr. O'Halleran.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing today to discuss the LIFT America Act and how it
addresses the needs for infrastructure investments that will
move our economy forward. I applaud the LIFT America Act for
including robust funding for high-speed broadband and clean
drinking water programs, pushing our energy sector to more
resiliency, and ensuring our hospitals and healthcare
facilities meet the needs of patients.
Rural America cannot be left behind. In fact, I don't know
that it can survive without getting in this process moving
forward, whether it is healthcare, education, economic
competitiveness--this is a necessary element of the
infrastructure of America for rural America. I hope to see
these investments particularly for broadband deployment target
areas of this country that need it the most.
Ms. Clyburn, I have a question here that I had before, but
you mentioned earlier about a communications issue within the
process. Can you refine that a little bit and tell me what you
mean?
Ms. Clyburn. The communications issue, are you talking in
terms of other State agencies?
Mr. O'Halleran. Agencies, right.
Ms. Clyburn. Right. What I wanted to point out was that and
it has been said a couple of times that you have State agencies
and the States and Federal agencies that are doing much of the
same things. I mean, everybody has grand goals and objectives
that we can't argue. The problem is they are either stepping on
each other, not speaking to each other, or spending money in a
lot of the same places.
So you have places that are getting double or triple the
amount of investment that may or may not be needed, and then
you have other areas in this country where there is no flow,
there is no provider, there is no investment and, again, there
are no, you know, Next Generation opportunities. So fixing
that, I think the bill encourages that.
It could be said, what could be fine-tuned a little bit
more? But it definitely addresses that, and that is the
problem. That is an issue.
Mr. O'Halleran. And I am glad to sponsor the bill, it is
clearly defining that. But also, I just can't believe our
Federal Government at this stage of our existence cannot
understand the need for agencies to communicate with one
another. I don't care across the board whether it is
Intelligence or Homeland Security or these agencies.
Ms. Clyburn. For better or worse, things are pretty siloed.
They are pretty siloed within certain----
Mr. O'Halleran. Too siloed.
Ms. Clyburn. Yes, thank you.
Mr. O'Halleran. Commissioner, in your testimony that
broadband funding must be targeted to places with the greatest
need to ensure that these communities who have been completely
left behind are connected as quickly as possible.
Ms. Clyburn. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'Halleran. I look forward to introducing a bipartisan
bill that was mentioned earlier that is also in the Senate on
broadband mapping.
Ms. Clyburn. Looking forward to it.
Mr. O'Halleran. I do appreciate the reverse auction and
infrastructure financing funds offered in Title I of the LIFT
America Act, but what else should be included in Title I to
close the digital divide?
Ms. Clyburn. Hmm. That is a great question. I might have to
include some--answer you for the record, if you don't mind. But
I think we are moving in the right direction.
Mr. O'Halleran. With energy infrastructure, I have heard
stories from many constituents in my district in lengthy
permitting reviews required before a project may begin. While
reviews are necessary for environmental protection, they should
also be done in a timely manner for project certainty.
Mr. Gruith, in your testimony you highlighted the
bipartisan work to establish the Federal Permitting Improvement
Steering Council in the FAST-41 bill. Within the LIFT America
Act, how can permitting for such projects also be addressed?
Mr. Guith. Not being a parliamentarian, I will have to
defer to you to some extent as far as jurisdictional
distinctions between here and Interior--I am sorry--between
here and the Natural Resources Committee, which has a lot of
the jurisdiction over NEPA itself. But I think if you look at
what happened in FAST-41, Energy and Commerce certainly had
some of it.
And I think the two big asks are to, one, make FAST-41, the
FAST-41 authorizations permit because we are about to run out
of authorization as well as constraining environmental reviews
to 2 years and the one Federal decision. I mean, those are all
things that benefit every form of infrastructure and there is
significant bipartisan support for.
Mr. O'Halleran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I yield the
rest of my time.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Next is the gentleman from Florida,
Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.
This question is for Mr. Guith. Last week a local article
reported 22 sites in Florida were found to have PFAS
contamination, including one city in my district. There are at
least 610 places that have PFAS levels in the country, I
understand. However, the term ``PFAS'' encompasses thousands of
different substances with different threat levels.
Again, Mr. Guith, do we know enough about individual PFAS
chemicals to know which are the most harmful? If so, should we
include a priority system in the legislation based on the
highest risk; if not, does more study need to be done before
allocating limited funds to this cause?
Mr. Guith. The simple answer is no. In the grand scheme of
toxics, we know very little about this family of chemicals as
far as what their epidemiological impacts are. We know that
they are vexing. They are long-lasting. A significant portion
of the population has PFAS in their blood system, but as you
point out they are not all the same. And so, we have a process
in place, or Congress has created a process at EPA, to review
the science of these chemicals and to ascertain which of them
are innocuous and which of them aren't, and that is the stage
that we are at right now. But because they are so pervasive,
there is understandably great concern around the country.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK, are children at greater risk to PFAS as
far as contamination risk? Are they at greater risk?
Mr. Guith. I personally don't know the answer to that
question.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Can we find out?
Mr. Guith. Absolutely, we can follow up with you.
Mr. Bilirakis. I mean, can you do some research and get
back to us, follow up? Thank you very much.
All right, the next question, again for Mr. Guith. State
regulators have been focused on accelerated replacement of
aging infrastructure. In fact, DOE has an existing
collaborative with the National Association of Regulatory
Utility Commissioners to address this issue. The collaborative
was designed so that DOE could focus on a demonstration of new
technologies for leak detection and pipeline replacement.
Mr. Guith, how might the grant program proposed in the LIFT
Act impede on States' authority to establish rate structures
and criteria for the accelerated replacement of pipelines
deemed no longer fit for service?
Mr. Guith. How it might impede, I think in some areas it
might be interpreted to be proscriptive as far as where the
money goes and how the cost recovery comes. But I think the
language could be maybe more direct to ensure that that overlap
does not happen and that rate formation State-by-State is not
impacted.
Mr. Bilirakis. All right. Thank you for that input. One
more question for you, sir. I am glad to see interest in
extending the school and child care program lead testing grants
and the lead drinking fountain replacement programs. Lead-
contaminated water in schools is a big issue in my district and
probably all over the country, and we need to make sure that we
protect our children.
Last month, a local news outlet reported that 68 percent of
Florida school districts did not fully test for lead in
drinking water. Additionally, a lot of the schools in my
district tested above the Federal standard for action. Again, I
want to see more testing because it is so very important. Can
you comment on that, sir?
Mr. Guith. I think within the context of my testimony and
this legislation, I think the most important part to accept is
that there is a great need for Federal funds across many forms
of Safe Drinking Water Act programs. That includes PFAS which
this legislation would create, but also the existing ones. So
that is why I think it is crucial that we be careful to not
cannibalize one for the other and to just increase the pot
across the board, because the demand is that great.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK, thank you very much. And I yield back.
Mr. Lujan. Will the gentleman from Florida yield?
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Lujan. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Clyburn, this morning I had the honor of
meeting with the mother of Ashlynne Mike. Her name is Pam
Foster. Sadly, Ashlynne is an 11-year-old Navajo girl who was
murdered and raped. The importance of Amber Alert systems
across the country--they work if you have broadband
connectivity and coverage.
I appreciate Mr. O'Halleran raising the issue of mapping as
well. The mapping that we have across the country right now is
not accurate with showing where there is coverage, especially
in rural parts of the country. Can you touch on how you believe
the LIFT Act's provisions will help us in getting more
connectivity so that, if someone needs to make that text
message, that phone call, or if someone has a smartphone on
them, we can triangulate and find them?
Ms. Clyburn. One of the things that I am happy to see is
its attention on Next Generation 9-1-1. I mentioned earlier
that the current systems are based on 50-year-old technology,
but we are now in an increasingly connected ecosystem. That
unfortunate incident and what is required and expected of us
being interoperable when we use our phone, it doesn't matter
which provider it is, it is interoperable, but our 9-1-1
systems are often not.
So ensuring that whatever road that the roads we traveled
where we did not have connectivity in your beautiful State, we
need to take care of that. In case of emergency there should be
no medium that you use--video, still, voice, text--that a 9-1-1
system should not be able to take. You know, those are the
baselines of today and tomorrow, and we cannot continue to rely
on a system that is not interoperable, that is not up to date.
Our first responders are doing a yeoman's job, e9-1-1 works
well. We need Next Gen. This takes care of that, and I am
happy--I can't endorse, I don't think, but I am happy to say
that whatever I can do to be a partner in moving this along, I
will.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you.
Mr. Pallone. All right. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Ruiz, is recognized.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our
panel for being here today. I support the LIFT America Act,
which will support critical infrastructure projects across the
country, and I am currently researching ways to make it even
better.
This bill would upgrade broadband internet access, shore up
critical 9-1-1 capabilities--as an emergency medicine
physician, that is very important to me--improving Indian
health service facilities, and help us meet our clean energy
goals for a sustainable future. In addition, this bill includes
robust investment in clean drinking water grant programs. This
will help support projects to improve water quality in areas
like the eastern Coachella Valley in my district, where I grew
up. It is a very rural, agricultural-focused, farmworker
community.
Clean and safe drinking water is a common good that
everyone deserves access to. However, a 2017 study by the
Environmental Working Group found that many of the smaller
rural and lower-income areas of the eastern Coachella Valley
had drinking water systems that contained contaminants,
including chromium 6, nitrates, and arsenic. The Coachella
Valley Water District and others have tackled this problem
head-on and are in the process of consolidating many of these
old and independent drinking water systems into their network.
None of this work could have been done without Federal
assistance from the State Revolving Fund because that funding
has a set-aside reserve for rural, resource-poor communities.
In a State and district like mine with so much in need, this
set-aside ensures that the communities most in need are able to
access funding.
Mayor Wahler, you talked about how cities have stepped up
infrastructure investment to fill the gaps, but that isn't
possible everywhere. How important is Federal funding for
drinking water infrastructure, both in your city and in low-
income communities, and how have you utilized them?
Mr. Wahler. Well, you are absolutely correct, Congressman.
Not every city or county has been able to do that. It requires
a lot of proper planning, but, you know, every--the costs of
the install of water lines vary from different parts of the
country.
I think there needs to be down payment money at the Federal
level because a lot of the communities--and especially in the
rural areas of this country--just don't have the resources to,
quite frankly, run miles and miles and miles of line, extended
period, to serve maybe a small pocket of people, but you still
have to get the transfer to where the need is, and that is
going to be a challenging thing even with this bill. Even if
this bill passed, we are still going to have an incredible
problem.
Mr. Ruiz. Great, OK. Do you have well water? Well water?
Mr. Wahler. In our community we have a few homes that
have--we have had a law on the books since the mid-'70s you
have to hook up to public water because we were worried about
contaminants.
Mr. Ruiz. Yes. Another important section of this bill
provides funding for new solar energy investments in rural,
low-income communities. The cost of solar energy has plummeted
over the past decade, allowing more and more Americans to reap
the benefits of clean energy.
My district has fully embraced the potential of renewable
energy. If you have ever driven on Interstate 10 through
Riverside County, you have seen the windmills, the wind
turbines, the utility scales, solar fields, and the panels that
line the roofs of neighborhoods throughout my district. And if
you haven't, you have probably seen it in a movie at some point
in your life.
But unfortunately, there are still communities that haven't
been able to share in the benefits of solar technology. And in
a region like my congressional district where the sun shines
bright and long for more than 350 days a year in the Palm
Springs, California, area, that means there is a lot of
untapped potential. In fact, my district produces the most
renewable energy on Federal land than any other district in the
country, but yet many of the residents cannot access that
renewable energy. The legislation we are considering today,
H.R. 2741, the Leading Infrastructure for Tomorrow's America
Act, establishes a program to provide loans and grants for
solar installations in low-income and resource-poor areas.
Mayor Wahler, in your written testimony you refer to these
provisions as ``inclusive and innovative.'' Can you explain why
the Conference of Mayors has decided to support the low-income
solar grant program and how eligible communities would benefit?
Mr. Wahler. Well, I think it is safe to say every town has
dynamics to it both socially and economically. Anywhere we can
help those folks save on their energy bill over the long term
will allow them to stay in their homes.
Mr. Ruiz. So what are some of those barriers?
Mr. Wahler. Well, you know, the truth of the matter is,
like when you are installing solar in your community, you may
have a roof that you have to replace the shingles before you
install solar because you are not exactly----
Mr. Ruiz. So what can a community do to foster more in-home
use of solar panels?
Mr. Wahler. Well, I think they need to have--first of all,
I think a lot of people don't have the resources to actually
have a study done on their house or where they live. And by
having an economic grant out there to do that, that will allow
people to realize whether it makes sense or not to put that on
their facility.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you very much. My time is up. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Next is Mrs. Brooks, recognized for
5 minutes.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all
of our panelists who have been sitting here now for quite some
time, but you all are very much adding in significant ways to
this really important discussion.
I want to start with you, Mr. Auerbach. Subtitle E, the
Public Health Infrastructure, we haven't talked about that very
much today, but it creates some new grants at the CDC--which I
actually just recently visited in late April--to improve
workforce capacity, competency lab systems, as you talked
about, public health information systems, communications
financing.
How do these grants differ--as one who has been very
involved in coleading with Congressman Eshoo on PAHPA--how do
these grants differ from the Public Health Emergency
Preparedness grants that CDC already administers?
Mr. Auerbach. Thank you. And let me start by saying thank
you for your leadership on the PAHPA.
Mrs. Brooks. Well, and thank you. We are pleased it came
back from the Senate, and we are very, very hopeful that we can
get it across the finish line in the very near future.
But how does this differ? And then you also said in your
testimony the PAHPA goal remains aspirational. We don't want to
think it is aspirational unless we have health information
technology. So could you please expand on that?
Mr. Auerbach. Sure. Well, the public health preparedness
grants that come from CDC now really focus on having the right
people, the right plans in place, and the right training so
that health departments can respond in a variety of different
ways. There is also support, of course, for some of the
disease-specific and response capacity in laboratories within
the States.
But they don't deal with the fundamental infrastructure
issues that are crippling many of the State and local health
departments. Those include the status of the health departments
themselves in terms of having the appropriate equipment,
technology to respond appropriately. So an example of that is
that many of the health departments don't have the advanced
molecular detection capacity, for example, so that if there is
an emergency and there is a rapid need to test a particular
organism to determine whether or not it is a risk to the
public, they are lacking that capacity.
So the funding that would be within the LIFT America Act
would complement the existing grants but provide that kind of
infrastructure that is necessary when you have the skills, you
have the plans, but you don't have the--the equipment that you
don't have, the facilities that can ensure that there is rapid
response.
Mrs. Brooks. Has that ever been mapped out, what our public
health departments need relative to the type of infrastructure
you are talking about?
I also want to commend the chairman for including public
health infrastructure, because I don't think many people in our
country think about public health as part of the infrastructure
needs, and so I was really pleased to see that. But has that
ever been determined, what we need across the country, public
health departments relative to infrastructure?
Mr. Auerbach. Thank you for asking that. There have been
efforts to attempt to address that, to capture that
information. There have been--there is information, for
instance, that has been developed on laboratory capacity,
information that has been developed on response to certain
types of emergencies like vector-borne illnesses like we saw,
for instance, with Zika.
So some of that information has been captured and there has
been planning efforts to estimate what it would take to close
the gap.
Mrs. Brooks. And excuse me for cutting you off----
Mr. Auerbach. Yes, yes.
Mrs. Brooks [continuing]. But I want to switch to one other
witness. Can you please get us the information as to where that
might be mapped or where it has been recorded?
Mr. Auerbach. Certainly, my pleasure.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you.
Mr. Lyons, a quick question. The State of Indiana has a
program called Next Level Broadband where Governor Holcomb and
the State is going to be providing a hundred million dollars to
deploy broadband to underserved--unserved--unserved areas in
the State. But can you speak to how the bill will complement
State programs like my own State's or maybe other States that
might be doing this? How can we ensure that there isn't that
duplication or the guardrails with this BIFIA program?
How can we make sure that we are not duplicating and that
we are covering the unserved areas?
Mr. Lyons. Yes, so part of the answer may be making sure
that the money that is allocated on the State level goes to the
State utility regulator as usually what is handling the State-
level initiatives. There are number of States across the
country that have State-level initiatives. I would envision the
State part of this as complementing those.
But you are right, it has to get in the hands of the same
people so you don't have right-hand/left-hand issues.
Mrs. Brooks. OK. Ms. Clyburn, do you have any comments on
that?
Ms. Clyburn. Yes. Again, it is about communications. We
talk about coordination, but it is about communications and
everybody is transparent in terms of where those monies are
flowing so that we are, again, are not overspending in one area
and just leaving others behind.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. And thank you all so much. I yield
back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Ms. Eshoo, recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Eshoo. At last. But this has been time spent very well,
I think. I arrived a little after the gavel was lowered, but I
have the advantage of having listened to everyone on the
committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this very important
bill. Thank you to all of the witnesses. You have given us--you
have enlightened us, and I thank you for it. Even though I have
been here for just about all morning and now part of the
afternoon, I see you looking at the clock. I know you are
hungry. Your stomachs are grumbling.
I am really excited about this bill. I think it should be
called the LIFT UP America Act because that is really what this
is designed to do. The American people understand what this
means. It is jobs, jobs, jobs. It is American jobs. It is
American equipment. It is American everything. And it really is
meant to lift up our country in the 21st century and to really
take care of the things that have been neglected, that have
been put off, whether it is building out broadband where
people--imagine, there are 21 million people in our country
that don't have it, you know, shame on us. But we are
correcting it and we are putting real money toward it.
Water systems, the NG 9-1-1--John Shimkus and I have been
on this like white on rice for more years than I want to count,
but I am excited because we are going to address it. This is
all about our first responders in every single community in
every single congressional district and, boy, do we need that.
Our Nation's grid--I could go on and on. I think, Mr. Chairman,
that we need to tighten up the section in the bill relative to
mapping, because we have got to get this thing right and we
haven't yet, and I want to work with you on that.
I also want to thank Mr. Auerbach for the work that you
have done in supporting PAHPA. It has been very important. All
of you have given very sophisticated testimony, and while PAHPA
is not in this bill, there are benefits that our country will
accrue from it. And our Nation's public health emergency
response infrastructure is taken for granted, but it is an
essential in our country.
Without this reauthorization, I mean, one of the Assistant
Secretaries said that they can't respond to the measles crisis
that is erupting in our country. So I look forward to Congress
passing this and getting it done. And I could never have asked
for a better partner than Congresswoman Susan Brooks.
Outstanding.
Mr. Mayor, I want to underscore something. You are here
with the U.S. Conference of Mayors. I want to thank you and all
of the mayors of our country for endorsing the legislation that
I am carrying relative to municipalities being preempted.
Mr. Wahler. Yes.
Ms. Eshoo. I come from local government, so I have a
reverence for it. Now, last fall the FCC preempted, essentially
ran over all the local municipalities, the local communities in
our country from having a say in deploying small cell sites,
and that is the infrastructure that is needed for 5G. And now
that poor policy has led to nearly a hundred municipalities,
public power utilities, and associations to sue the FCC. Say
something about that to us.
Mr. Wahler. Well, Piscataway is part of the lawsuit. Let's
just face it----
Ms. Eshoo. And thank you.
Mr. Wahler. The reality is we need to work with the telecom
industry. They are the 21st century railroads. And
unfortunately, as we all know history, when the railroads were
being built, they just went along their merry way and do
whatever they want.
Ms. Eshoo. But let me interrupt for a moment, because one
of the witnesses said that this is the way it should go, and it
is going to slow them down and it is going to bollocks
everything up as if local municipal--that is the heartbeat of
America, every city and town in our country.
So respond to what--I don't know, was it Professor Lyons?
Were you the one that didn't agree? I am not asking you to
comment.
Mr. Lyons. That is right. Yes.
Ms. Eshoo. Just you can say--yes, you are the one. OK.
Mr. Wahler. Municipalities, you know, there shouldn't be
reason to preempt our municipal rights-of-way. The municipal
rights-of-way are the most valuable assets that communities
have regardless of the--other than the people that live within
the community. We maintain the rights-of-way. There is, from
what I understand, from what the communications folks want to
do, is that there is no guarantee that they are going to repair
when they tear the rights-of-way up.
Ultimately, at the end of the day they are not the ones
that get the calls to City Hall about what the heck is going on
in my neighborhood. All I know is that there is a lot of very
upset people, a lot of upset officials around this country.
They have not been equal partners in this.
Ms. Eshoo. Hardly.
Mr. Wahler. And something has got to give, and that is why
a lawsuit was filed.
Ms. Eshoo. Well, I want to thank----
Mr. Pallone. The gentlewoman's time----
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. The chairman of the full committee
again and thank everyone, and especially for the support you
have given to this effort. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wahler. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I have to catch a train
in 15 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. That is all right. You are excused. But thank
you for coming.
Mr. Wahler. I have a ribbon-cutting of a beautiful park
that we used to rebuild the community with block grant money,
and we guaranteed all the kids an ice cream truck tonight.
Ms. Eshoo. Isn't that great?
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mayor.
Mr. Wahler. So, Chairman, if you get this bill through and
pass final passage, I will bring the ice cream truck down here
to the committee.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mayor. Safe travels.
Next is Mr. Walberg, recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the
whole panel for being here today. I have the privilege of
representing Michigan's energy district. We have everything in
it, including biomass, and it is all going well. We all have
the challenges with that energy. Title 3 contemplates Federal
spending in the tens of billions of dollars in our energy
infrastructure.
While some of these investments are needed, I echo the
concerns raised by my friend and colleague from Michigan, Mr.
Upton, about the cost and nature of these programs, whether
they are the best way to approach the problem or whether they
will work the way they are intended, given the overlap amongst
many of them.
Mr. Guith, the bill authorizes a Federal Strategic Transfer
Reserve. I understand the need to ensure recovery from major
power outages, especially after a cyber attack. But it is my
understanding that Congress authorized DOE to conduct a study
into the need for such a strategic reserve and the best
approach to ensuring resiliency and availability, replacements
of transformers pursuant to the FAST Act.
Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would like to enter this report
into the record.
Mr. Pallone. Have we seen it? Have we seen what Mr. Walberg
wants to enter into the record?
Without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Walberg. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think
you should have seen that.
Mr. Guith, in your own testimony you report the Department
of Energy determined that the Strategic Transfer Reserve would
not be necessary and did not recommend the formation of a
federally owned reserve. If we are to enhance electricity-
sector resilience, does it make sense to follow DOE's statutory
required recommendations?
Mr. Guith. Yes. I mean, if you look into what the country
has available when it comes to rapid response for critical
situations of power outages, whether it is because of weather
or some other interruption, it is incumbent upon the Nation's
utilities to bring those, to have those assets stockpiled and
be able to bring them to bear collectively at the drop of a
hat, and that is what DOE determined.
And that is why we would recommend taking the authorized
funds for the Transformer Reserve Program and applying them to
the Transformer Resilience and Advance Components Program also
in the bill, because that is where the most work can be done,
is how to make the transformers themselves more resilient to
extreme conditions.
Mr. Walberg. So probably before moving forward we ought to
make sure that these recommendations are captured. I would
assume that from your--thank you.
Mr. Lyons and Commissioner Clyburn, can you please comment
on the provision of the bill that allows entities not
designated as eligible telecommunications carriers to receive
funding under this bill?
Ms. Clyburn. I think it would promote innovative ideas and
opportunities as long as those companies are well-vetted and
meet the standards. I think it should be an all-inclusive, all-
of-the-above approach so we can get the best ideas, the best
technologies to the market.
Mr. Walberg. Mr. Lyons?
Mr. Lyons. I agree with that. I think the more people you
have bidding in the reverse auctions, the better, as long as
they can meet the minimum technical standards of what the
auction is requiring.
Mr. Walberg. OK. Mr. Lyons, do you see the potential for a
bottleneck in deploying this funding when it comes to skilled
professional workforce that can actually use the funding
considered in this bill to actually go out and build the
networks?
Mr. Lyons. I think that is possible. There are certainly a
number of folks, particularly in the wireless, the fixed
wireless space, who have talked about the need for more workers
than we can get. When you are talking about deploying in rural
areas where populations are relatively small, you are going to
need to find trained people somewhere.
Mr. Walberg. That is a challenge these days.
Commissioner Clyburn, is there more the Commission or we
in Congress can help to reduce this problem?
Ms. Clyburn. Yes, coordination, certainty, and focus. I
really think if we keep our eyes on the what the potential for
this, it will--it sounds like a big price tag, but it will pay
for itself in multiples.
Mr. Walberg. OK, thank you. I appreciate that. I yield
back.
Mr. Pallone. I thank the gentleman. Next is Mr. Engel,
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Engel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Auerbach, I have a few questions I would like to ask
you. And I am going to make a statement, and I would like you
to comment on it. Community-based hospitals are often the
cornerstone of healthcare systems, and many of them operate on
very thin margins--I know that is true in my district--and
therefore lack the resources to invest in new facilities.
I am pleased to be an original sponsor of the LIFT America
Act, which does include $2 billion to modernize hospitals, and
it marks an important first step, but considerably more funding
obviously is necessary to address the dire state of our
Nation's hospitals. So I would like to ask you if you could
please describe the negative effects that outdated and
antiquated hospital facilities can have on patient care. I
mean, it is obvious, but I think we should state it.
Mr. Auerbach. Sure. And thank you very much for this
question. You raise an important point. We are seeing across
the country that a number of our hospitals are becoming
outdated. Their facilities are in some instances literally
crumbling and that that kind of an impact, as well as the
impact of cutting back on services or in some instances
closing, is having a very negative impact on the provision of
healthcare services to the people in those communities.
It can mean it becomes more difficult to provide high-
quality care. It can mean there can be additional expenses in
terms of the provision of care, and it is particularly a
problem for the safety net hospitals, for the hospitals that
serve the lower-income residents of the country.
So paying attention to the status of the hospitals, the
infrastructure of those hospitals, both the buildings
themselves and the technology within those buildings, both
laboratory technology and internet technology, is extremely
important in terms of health outcomes and quality of care
overall.
Mr. Engel. Well, thank you very much. I absolutely agree
with you. The second question deals with lead pipes. And I want
to tell you that during the 2016-2017 academic year, parents of
students attending Public School 41, which is a public
elementary school in my district, told me they were concerned
about elevated lead levels in the school's water fixtures.
And we worked with the city's Department of Education, New
York City. We were able to replace all of the affected
fixtures. It was one of several schools in the city with lead-
made water fixtures, and I, really, I am happy that the city
replaced 91 percent of the water fixtures affected. It has
commitment to achieving a hundred percent, but the good work in
New York City is really an exception.
One recent nationwide survey estimates that 6 million lead
service lines are still in use, posing a risk to the health and
well-being of American families. So, Mr. Auerbach, let me ask
you again, can you please describe the impacts of lead exposure
on children's development and growth?
Mr. Auerbach. Sure. Well, lead exposure can have a
devastating impact on the health of children. As their brains
are developing rapidly, the impact of lead can cause
developmental delay. It can cause behavioral health problems.
In some instances it results in hospitalization. If that lead
exposure is high enough, it can even result in death. So lead
exposure is particularly dangerous and for children, but it is
dangerous for people at any age.
Mr. Engel. Well, thank you. And my third and final
statement, which also involves a question, talks about the
recent outbreaks of Zika and flu have shown our Nation is
woefully unprepared for infectious disease outbreaks, and we
have seen it with measles as well. Much of this can be
attributed to a lack of Federal support for public health
infrastructure, including disease monitoring systems and
diagnostics laboratories.
I am pleased to see that the LIFT America Act will make
robust investments in this area. So let me ask you again the
question, how will these investments prepare our healthcare
system with the threat posed by antibiotic-resistant pathogens,
sometimes called superbugs?
Mr. Auerbach. Thank you for asking that question. The
threats associated with antibiotic resistance are very
significant threats and likely to increase over time. We are
seeing more and more instances where they are being detected in
healthcare facilities and at the locations, and they pose a
significant risk to the public. Public health can play a
critical role, and the support through the LIFT America Act
provides much of that support to do rapid testing.
Identification of what those bugs are using technology like
advanced nuclear detection allows us to get a precise
understanding of what those pathogens are and makes it easier
for them to be isolated and makes it easier for the people that
have been exposed to them to be treated. So this is a serious
threat and one where this act would help in terms of both
prevention and response.
Mr. Engel. Well, thank you very much. I think it is
important to get these things on the record so people
understand how important this is and how it really affects
everyone. Thank you.
Mr. Auerbach. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Engel. Yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Engel. Mr. Carter, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you. Thank all of you for being here, we
appreciate your indulgence. And I know you are tired and you
are hungry but you are almost there, so hang in there, OK.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have the honor and privilege of
representing the entire coast of Georgia, and we of course are
not immune from natural disasters. In fact, we have had two
hurricanes in an 11-month period and, as you can imagine, very
devastating to our area.
I wanted to ask, I see a lot of programs and funding that
are included in these bills and Mr. Guith, I will ask you. They
seem to prioritize different uses, but I don't see them really
prioritizing disaster situations. And I was just wondering how
much of this bill really does actually reinforce resiliency. Is
that really included? I mean, surely, we want to mitigate these
types of situations. We know that they are more common now, and
some would argue that they are more intense now in these
storms. Are we doing anything in this bill that would help us
in that respect?
Mr. Guith. I am not going to pretend to be an expert on all
200-some pages, but I think there are aspects that absolutely
address reliability and resiliency. We have talked about some
of them this morning on the transformer resiliency, some of the
monies that would go to DOE to help develop more resilient
transformers.
But also within the scope of the smart grid funding, I
think that could also be considered a reliability function,
because the more automated you have the ability to dispatch
electrons and make real-time differences when you have one path
cut down because of a tree line or because of a hurricane and
the ability to bring new generation online more quickly and to
distribute that, I mean, that is one of the underlying aspects
of a smart grid. So I would say that it does take steps to
address reliability and resiliency.
Mr. Carter. Well, I am glad to hear that, because I
honestly believe that if we are smarter, if you will, if we
just use a little bit of preparation that we can sustain these
storms a lot better, and certainly that would help.
The weatherization program under the Department of Energy--
and it is obviously intended to reduce costs for low-income
individuals in low-income communities, of which we have quite a
few in the State of Georgia as well--but are these updated in
any ways to help these people? Because, I mean, it is
devastating to anyone who is flooded and it is devastating to
anyone who is impacted by this, but especially for low-income.
Are you familiar with anything to do with that?
Mr. Guith. The Weatherization Assistance Program is
something that--it is a program that has been around, I think,
for 3 decades. The reauthorization is incredibly important not
only to the recipients of those grants but also to the
utilities who serve them and provide the weatherization.
The one mention I make in my testimony is that we would
caution against diverting funds from efficiency improvements,
which is what the Weatherization Assistance Program has been
focused on serving some 7 million Americans over its lifetime,
and broadening the definition to include renewable technology.
That is addressed in other parts of the bill which we have also
heard about this morning, specifically what Mr. Ruiz mentioned
related to rural and low-income solar.
So we would prefer that this stay, that the Weatherization
Assistance Program stay solely within the bandwidth of
increasing efficiency around the envelope of the residence.
Mr. Carter. Good. Thank you for that.
Professor Lyons, I wanted to ask you. I represent South
Georgia, a lot of rural area in South Georgia, and I know one
of the things that we have talked about is the broadband build-
out. And you seemed to express concerns about the mapping
process and about us making certain that we are prioritizing
places that need to be, such as the rural areas. What would you
suggest? I mean what can we do differently perhaps?
Mr. Lyons. So part of the issue lies with better data
collection at the FCC, right, so the FCC is already in the
process of trying to figure out how to improve their existing
data collection efforts and have started to reach out with,
through public-private partnerships, with groups like USTelecom
to figure out better reporting.
I think one thing that may be helpful is, as we mentioned
before--and this is something that Commissioner Clyburn
mentioned in her remarks as well--is some form of crowdsourcing
to get third-party information, right. The information of what
services are available where is known by the American people.
It is just a matter of getting it from the disparate level up
to those who are coordinating this, and finding ways to do that
may be very useful.
So, for example, I can go at any time on a website called
speedtest.net, right. Anywhere I am as long as I have a
connection, it will tell me not only that I have connectivity
but what the speed is. That type of data is really valuable if
you can get it in the hands of those who are mapping not only
availability but also speed on a locational basis.
Mr. Carter. Right, right. Well, thank you. And thank you
all again for hanging in there with us. And I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Mr. Rush, recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I sheepishly
come to the committee room for this hearing because I have been
in the chair when Members come in in the last minute and enter
the hearing, and I do know the feeling. So I feel you, Mr.
Chairman. I feel the witnesses also. I am going to be brief.
But I was at an important meeting of the Congressional
Black Caucus and, Ms. Clyburn, your father came in and gave us
a report on what happened at the White House this morning. And
one thing I just want to say that this hearing is being
conducted with the White House meeting as a backdrop where the
President told the Speaker and the other Democratic leaders
there that they had a choice of either investigations or
infrastructure, and then he walked out. So he is putting that
choice before the American people, want Congress investigations
or infrastructure, and he walked out and closed the door. That
was the President.
And so--but I sit here as a proud cosponsor of the LIFT
America Act, and I certainly want to commend my chairman,
Chairman Pallone, for his leadership and his endurance as well
as all of my colleagues for their hard work in bringing forth
this much-needed bill.
With titles on expanding broadband, increasing funding for
clean drinking water, modernizing our electric grid, and making
healthcare more accessible, this bill will provide enormous
help to my constituents, and it goes beyond just the empty
rhetoric and partisan posturing. It makes significant
investments in starting to rebuilding our Nation and combating
climate change.
So I am going to begin my questions with you, Ms. Clyburn.
I know this is an issue that you worked on for many years now
as a Commissioner. In your opinion, how well does the LIFT Act,
the LIFT America Act, help modernize our telecommunications
infrastructure and expand broadband to all of America, all
communities in America?
Ms. Clyburn. One of the great opportunities I had as
serving as an FCC Commissioner is being part of the public-
private partnership agreement that we had with industry. It
brought--it leveraged limited resources with the resources of
commercial enterprises. What this does is pick up where that
left off, where we were so dependent on industry to--by their
business plans, even though it was a partnership, this says,
``Here is what has not worked in the past. Here are where the
gaps are. This is where the money is going to.''
So it is targeted. It is intentional. And it will allow us
with that $40 billion to fill in some gaps that we have been
talking about, lamenting about, and acting like we did not know
that money will fix this. It will target it, you know, direct
that to those places. And that is why I wanted to be here
today, because, you know, I thought I was done with hearings.
Mr. Rush. Understand.
Ms. Eckdish, I come from Chicago, and believe it or not, we
have a crisis for clean water in Chicago, and it is really a
crisis in urban areas throughout the Nation as we start out to
rebuild the water infrastructure. And how will this bill help
us to solve the problem of access to clean water across the
Nation, including my city of Chicago?
Ms. Eckdish. Sure. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
From aging infrastructure, leaking infrastructure, to
contaminants that we have talked about today, lead in our
water, there is tremendous need, and we know communities across
the country are struggling to provide clean water. This bill
will be a significant step in the right direction in terms of
really investing more funds in our State Revolving Funds and
the Drinking Water SRF that is a very proven program and also
will create good jobs.
Mr. Rush. And there is a battle and has been for decades
now in Chicago among some of the unions and contracting
developers around plastic or lead pipe. Do you have any
position of which one is more conducive to clean water and
clean environment?
Ms. Eckdish. You know, I think that is a really important
question. I would love to follow up for the record on that one.
Mr. Rush. Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Rush. Mr. Gianforte is now
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gianforte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
committee for being here. As we look to rebuild and modernize
our infrastructure, addressing the needs of our rural
communities must be a priority, from rebuilding roads and
bridges to maintaining dams and waterways to investing in
reliable access to water.
As the internet continues to transform how we work,
communicate, and connect, delivering dependable broadband to
our rural communities needs to be a top priority. Reliable
access to broadband is a key to opening the doors of greater
opportunity and the American Dream to more Americans. The
internet as we know it came to be around 1995. For 20 years it
was open and free. It ushered in innovation and transformed our
economy, leading to new high-tech sector and good-paying jobs.
In 1997, my wife Susan and I started a business in our home
in Bozeman, Montana. We had this idea that the internet might
actually make it possible for folks to work from anywhere, even
from Montana. We were right. Our company grew from a room in
our house to one of Montana's largest employers, with 1,100
employees and an average salary of almost $90,000 a year, in
Montana.
Ours was just one example of how the internet created more
high-paying American jobs, increased opportunity and
prosperity. While broadband access has taken off exponentially
for some in the last 10 years, our rural communities remain one
of the most difficult to connect. One in three Montanans still
lacks access to broadband. And the disparity is worse in our
rural areas.
To bridge this digital divide, the overall cost of getting
fiber to the last home must come down. Congress should cut red
tape from the permitting process and empower State and local
officials to efficiently deploy broadband in our rural
communities. Last Congress, I worked with Representative Curtis
from Utah to pass the Rural Broadband Permitting Efficiency Act
through the House. This bill streamlines the deployment of
broadband infrastructure in highway right-of-ways by cutting
back on duplicative Federal permitting laws and regulations.
These mandated reviews can cause unneeded and yearlong delays
in critical projects. They also discourage providers and States
from pursuing broadband deployment projects, especially in
rural areas.
Reforming the Federal permitting process spans the
ideological spectrum from a conservative like me to the
president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute.
Three years ago he said, ``An accumulation of laws and
regulations largely designed to protect the environment via
environmental impact reviews is bogging down the approval of
badly needed transportation projects and instead causing
environmental damage.''
The fact is, the current permitting regime is an obstacle
to opportunity. There is bipartisan agreement for permitting
reform. As we build an infrastructure package, we must work
together to reform the Federal permitting process to help us
make timely and critical investments in our communities that
need them the most.
I want to start with you, Mr. Guith, if I could.
Commonsense reforms in right-of-way, the FAST-41 authority, and
the environmental review process can cut down the costs and
timeliness of projects. Are there other practices that we
should be looking at to make the permitting process more
efficient?
Mr. Guith. Besides permanent authorization of FAST-41, I
would say the two most useful tools that Congress can provide
are codifying one Federal decision which was in the executive
order from 2 years ago so that there is no question to a
project sponsor who is shepherding or who is responsible
ultimately for their project. Instead of saying, ``All right,
Federal Government, who is working on it now?'' and you get a
bunch of shoulder shrugs, you know, specifically there is one
and one only. And that is also important when there are
discrepancies between two agencies as to who takes the
priority.
And then the other aspect is limiting the time frame to 2
years. I mean, there can always be certain exceptions made, but
the bottom line is that concurrent process through the entire
Federal Government as well as State and local, it shouldn't
take longer than 2 years. It shouldn't take longer to permit a
project than it does to build it.
Mr. Gianforte. Well, I appreciate that, and I see my time
is coming to an end. But I just want to say thank you for being
here. We need to continue to work together and, Mr. Chairman,
let's find bipartisan ways to get this infrastructure built,
particularly as it relates to rural broadband. And I yield
back.
Mr. Pallone. I thank the gentleman. Oh, Ms. Kuster is here.
Ms. Kuster is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kuster. Last but not least. You are almost done. Thank
you for your patience, and I want to join my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to talk about rural broadband, critical
issue in my district in New Hampshire. I have made this comment
before, but I think the presidential primary candidates are
going to have the experience, ``Can you hear me now? Can you
hear me now?'' And I think it may become a higher priority on
their agenda, I hope.
But thank you for your work, Commissioner. We appreciate
it. And I do want to work with the committee on the mapping
issue. I think Cathy McMorris Rodgers mentioned a bill, and I
would like to work in a bipartisan way. That is a big point for
us right now because the maps show that there is better
coverage than there actually is, and so we have a citizen
initiative going out and trying to collect the data for the
FCC.
And then the other issue that I make note of is your point
that population is not a good proxy for coverage, that we
should maybe revisit and fix that issue, the allocation issue
around the funding. But I think you have heard today broad,
bipartisan support for improved access and for education, for
job training; it is critically important for us in terms of the
next generation of citizens and workers in New Hampshire, so I
appreciate that. I also appreciate the issues around clean
drinking water in the LIFT Act. I want to commend the chair for
including that.
In New Hampshire we recently passed a State law requiring
that schools test their water and take remediation efforts if
contamination is present. A recent GAO report indicated 57
percent of American schools do not test their drinking water
for lead, which I think to most parents would be pretty
shocking. And so, I think it is important to address that in
the LIFT Act, funding for drinking water programs including
schools and child care programs.
So I want to follow up, Ms. Eckdish, from your testimony
highlighting more than half of the schools across the country
were built during the 1970s or before. Can you discuss the
challenges that some of these schools face around lead
contamination and drinking water and how this bill might make a
difference?
Ms. Eckdish. Sure. Thank you for that question,
Congresswoman. And again, I think schools are a critical issue
that should be part of the infrastructure conversation. As we
heard from Mr. Auerbach, children are particularly susceptible
to lead, so looking at lead in schools as well as lead in child
care facilities is extremely important moving forward and
should be part of the infrastructure discussion.
I think more broadly there could be opportunities to look
at--the bill does look at the energy efficiency at schools.
There are opportunities to look more broadly at the health and
safety of these school facilities beyond lead, asbestos, a
number of other challenges that these aging facilities are
facing.
Ms. Kuster. And I also appreciate the provisions around
PFAS. We just had a hearing recently, and that has been a big
issue in my district as well. And I just think, you know, as a
mother, as a Member of Congress, I care about the present and
future well-being of our children, and I think it is something
that is, you know, critically important, so I appreciate that.
And then just turning to the significant investment in
moving us toward a clean energy economy, in New Hampshire we
have five towns already--Concord, Keene, Plainfield, Hanover,
and Cornish--in my district that have committed to use 100
percent renewable energy by 2030. And I think so many
communities are stepping up on clean energy.
Our housing authority, for example, in Keene, New
Hampshire, recently installed solar arrays on a housing
project, and it is going to reduce pollution equivalent to gas-
powered driving vehicles a hundred and ninety, two hundred
thousand every single year. So again, Ms. Eckdish, if you can
discuss how the LIFT Act's grant program to support solar
installations could make a difference, and then my time will be
up and you will be done.
Ms. Eckdish. Sure, thank you. So I think, again, investing
in clean energy is a tremendous need both in terms of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and, if we do it right, with strong
labor and procurement standards we can also create good jobs
not only in the installation of these solar panels, wind
infrastructure projects, but also in the manufacturing of the
component parts. And I think that is an important thing to
consider as well.
Ms. Kuster. So a bipartisan win-win-win well-delivered, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. And Mr. Cardenas is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, for having this important hearing. And I just want to
say that I am happy to be talking about infrastructure today,
and I am certain the American people are happy that we are
talking about it, but hopefully we can put that talk into some
actions as legislators.
Improving broadband infrastructure to make sure our
students can get their homework, to modernizing infrastructure
in transportation, to make sure it is smart and energy
efficient to improving our healthcare, physical infrastructure,
and telecommunications systems, to fixing our drinking water
infrastructure--this bill takes tremendous strides towards a
future we should have gotten to many, many years ago. And it is
really important for us to realize that it is our
responsibility. It is every generation's responsibility.
But I personally believe that the United States of
America--that we who are around today, especially
decisionmakers and adults--we have been resting on the laurels
and the hard work of previous generations who have invested in
infrastructure and we, unfortunately, have been able to take it
for granted. And far too often I think that we do take it for
granted.
In Los Angeles, many need to drive to get to school, work,
to see their families. We are working on reducing emissions so
we can breathe cleaner air in Los Angeles. We are building out
our public transit, which will greatly benefit families in the
San Fernando Valley. I am very proud to see it in our school
districts.
In Los Angeles, we embarked on an over $30 billion
infrastructure to build again an example of an infrastructure
that we had foregone for decades, for generations, and now we
have one of the most modern school systems in the country when
it comes to the infrastructure thereof. Nearly 25 million
children ride over 500,000 predominantly diesel buses to school
in the U.S. every single day, which contributes to air
pollution and, importantly, it also exposes our most vulnerable
population to that air pollution. That is why I have introduced
the Clean Commute for Kids Act, which would provide funding to
replace/retrofit school bus fleets with cleaner energy sources
like electricity or natural gas. I want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for including this bill in the LIFT America Act.
I have a question. My first question is for Mayor Wahler
and Ms. Eckdish. Can you talk about what converting or
retrofitting a school bus fleet to cleaner energy sources like
electricity can be for reducing emissions?
Ms. Eckdish. Sure. Thank you for the question. We are
talking about, obviously, emissions reductions. We are talking
about air pollution benefits, so public health benefits as
well. And if we do it right, and we are also looking at
procuring those vehicles domestically, we are also looking at
job creation benefits in the community as well.
Mr. Cardenas. OK, anybody else? OK, so I guess we agree it
is good for everyone. And I think it is important for us to
understand that we must keep, in my mind, the common
denominator is our most vulnerable, seniors and children.
Seniors and children. Seniors and children, because,
fortunately or unfortunately, many of us take things for
granted and we don't feel or understand how dire these changes
are and how they need to be made, like, yesterday.
I believe that the Clean Commute for Kids Act will reduce
emissions in communities, reduce the exposure of our children
to carbon emissions and particulate matter that has been shown
to cause health issues like asthma, which will expose children
to clean energy sources and get them excited about renewables.
And again, this is an example for children. What we have seen
when we were growing up, we should not take it for granted that
that is modern and clean and good for the next generation.
As we convert to cleaner, renewable sources we need to
address the issue of energy storage. The current landscape of
storage includes grid scale, pump storage, hydropower, and
smaller lithium-ion batteries. But I understand that several
new grid-scale technologies are either in laboratories or pilot
phase. Now, the great additional benefit we will have from
solving this problem is that we will be creating new, green
jobs for Americans at the same time.
Ms. Eckdish, any perspectives on that?
Ms. Eckdish. Yes, thank you. I completely agree we should
be investing broadly and leading in these new clean
technologies.
Mr. Cardenas. So how are we doing in the laboratory, from
your perspective? I mean, do we have some of these things
coming to fruition soon hopefully? I mean, is the investment
being made, as far as you are aware?
Ms. Eckdish. I think we need to significantly increase our
investments across these low-carbon technologies. I think we
have made significant strides in a number of them, but there is
significant much more work to be done.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. And also I would just like to acknowledge
and thank Commissioner Clyburn for all of your expertise and
the efforts that you have constantly given not only to this
committee but the Members of Congress from your perspective and
your public service. So thank you.
Ms. Clyburn. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Cardenas. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Pallone. I thank the gentleman. And last but not least,
we have Mr. Butterfield, recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
realize the hour is late, and I will try to get through this
much quicker than in 5 minutes. But thank you to the witnesses
and thank you for hanging in there for the last few hours. It
has been a long day.
You know, Mr. Chairman, we have been talking about
infrastructure ever since I have been in Congress, but it seems
that in the last couple of years we have really gotten serious
about a serious and big and bold investment in infrastructure.
And the good thing about it, it seems that it is becoming a
bipartisan conversation here on the Hill, and so I am real
excited about it.
When our leadership went to the White House a few weeks
ago, I guess it was 3 weeks ago, to discuss it with the
President, we initially put $1.2 trillion on the table as a
beginning point, and then I understand the conversation
mushroomed into 1.5 trillion and the President himself offered
2 trillion. And so that was a good opening.
Our leadership went back to the White House this morning
and continued the conversation to try to find ways to pay for a
$2 trillion infrastructure investment, but unfortunately the
President, upon hearing some news reports that he disliked
about our Democratic Caucus meeting this morning, literally
walked out of the meeting and ended the conversations and said
that, until there is a discontinuation of the investigations,
then there will be no conversation at all with him about
infrastructure.
And I don't know if the five of you know that. You have
been at the table all day long. I don't know if you have seen
the breaking news, but the President literally walked out of
the meeting today and said that he would not continue the
conversation. And so that is very unfortunate, but I am
prepared to vote for any infrastructure package that we have an
opportunity to vote on.
Mr. Chairman, one thing that I have been concerned about
over the years is a proper definition of infrastructure. When I
think of infrastructure I think of electric grid. I think of
water systems, contaminated water, sewer systems, brownfields,
bridges, ports, highways, high-speed rail, airports,
transportation hubs, rural broadband, broadband, clean energy,
pipeline safety, schools, hospitals, public health and
recreation, and the list just goes on and on.
Now I know that a trillion dollars is a lot of money, Mr.
Chairman, but if you try to pay for all of these projects in a
big way, a trillion dollars will not be sufficient to fund all
of these different projects. So that is why I want to call on
us to really get serious about defining what infrastructure
really is. And so let me just begin with Ms. Clyburn.
In your written testimony, you discussed the importance of
educational institutions and their essential role in training
and educating the next generation of our Nation's workforce.
And I am pleased that the LIFT America Act would help connect
these institutions at a huge speed. With that in mind, for more
than a hundred years, HBCUs--and you and I have great love and
affection for HBCUs--they have always been at the forefront of
education for African Americans. Sadly, many HBCUs are plagued
with issues like outdated technological infrastructure and
equipment, limited access to digital and wireless technology,
and limited funds for new faculty and academic programs.
Earlier this year, I introduced the Building Resources into
Digital Growth and Education Act--I call it the BRIDGE Act--to
address these problems. This legislation will establish a
digital network technology program that awards grants to HBCUs
and other institutions to acquire equipment and network
capability and personnel and other resources.
I guess my question is, with the last 1 minute that I have,
why in your opinion is the LIFT America Act support for anchor
institutions and their efforts to develop the country's
workforce so important?
Ms. Clyburn. Our schools, no matter what level, our
libraries, no matter where they are, how big or small, they are
life-changing, game-changing ecosystems. They meet us where we
are at any age, and they have a unique ability to bring us
through technology, through all types of learning to take us to
our next level. They are the best places, I believe, to guide
us, particularly the digitally and technologically challenged,
to guide us to the next level.
And HBCUs, in particular, I think, are uniquely situated to
uplift themselves and the communities at the same time. I was
in North Carolina earlier this year talking just about that on
Johnson C. Smith's campus, so people are quietly talking about
this, but this would be the impetus to move that to the next
level.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you. I needed that in the record.
Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman, yes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. I think we have come to the end
here. You have been here for over 4 hours. Let me just say a
couple of things to follow up on what Mr. Butterfield and
others have said, you know, in terms of where we are going. You
know, obviously this is our first hearing, and we did have a
hearing on the LIFT America Act.
But as I have said to my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, you know, we will continue to entertain, you know,
different legislation that other Members have put forward. This
is not the end-all, you know, just the LIFT America Act. We
could obviously incorporate, you know, other legislation that
Members have submitted or will submit on both sides of the
aisle. Same for funding, you know, Members and ideas about
funding will continue as well.
And I know that this meeting occurred today where the
President walked out, but hopefully he will reconsider and
hopefully we will continue to, you know, have more summits at
the White House because this is an important bill. And I think
that an infrastructure bill can be done on a bipartisan basis,
so I am going to be optimistic today. So let me just thank our
witnesses for participating for over 4 hours.
I will just remind Members that, pursuant to committee
rules, they have 10 business days to submit additional
questions for the record to be answered by the witnesses who
have appeared. And of course, I would ask each witness to
respond promptly to any such questions that you might receive.
I do have to enter into the record, this is going to take a
couple of minutes here. I request unanimous consent to enter
the following letters/testimony into the record, and that
includes a letter from the American Wind Energy Association; a
letter from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association;
a letter from U.S. Green Building Council; a letter from
Congresswoman Cheri Bustos; a letter from the Small Business &
Entrepreneurship Council; a letter from the Diesel Technology
Forum; letters from the National Association of Convenience
Stores, National Association of Truck Stop Operators, the
Petroleum Marketers Association of America, and the Society of
Independent Gasoline Marketers of America; a letter from the
American Public Health Association; a letter from the Health
Care Information and Management Systems Society; a letter from
the Association of Public Health Laboratories, the Council of
State and Territorial Epidemiologists, the Health Care
Information and Management Systems Society, and the National
Association for Public Health Statistics and Information
Systems; a report from the Department of Energy on the
Strategic Transformer Reserve dated March of 2017; a letter
from the Satellite Industry Association; a letter from
USTelecom-The Broadband Association; a letter from the American
Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers; and a letter from the MQ
Foundation. And, without objection----
Mr. Shimkus. Reserve the right to object.
Mr. Pallone. You are objecting?
Mr. Shimkus. But I don't object.
Mr. Pallone. Oh, OK. That sounds good.
Mr. Shimkus. I just wanted to let you know I was here.
Mr. Pallone. All right, I love you.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the
hearing.\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department of Energy report has been retained in committee
files and also is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/
IF00/20190522/109531/HHRG-116-IF00-20190522-SD014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Pallone. And unless you have some additional comments.
No? OK, the committee is officially adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:21 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Anna G. Eshoo
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing on the
Leading Infrastructure for Tomorrow's America Act or LIFT
America Act. I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this important
legislation which makes critical investments in broadband
deployment, clean energy, and healthcare infrastructure.
Ensuring that all Americans have access to quality and
affordable internet service must be a top priority for our
country. Despite gains made, over 21 million Americans still
lack access to broadband. Every community in every part of our
country, whether it's rural, suburban or urban, must have
access to high-quality internet for modern healthcare,
education, and jobs.
Congress can close the digital divide by making Federal
investments in the deployment of broadband and aligning
incentives for investments by government and industry. The LIFT
America Act takes critical steps to ensure that sufficient
public investment can be directed toward broadband
infrastructure, and I strongly support the provisions of this
bill that authorize the amount of spending needed to close this
divide that diminishes our country.
We still need to do more to incentivize investments in
broadband by municipalities, States, Federal agencies, and
private entities. To that end, I've introduced four bills that
create or improve incentives for equitable broadband
investment. H.R. 2692, the Broadband Conduit Act, commonly
known as ``dig once,'' is bicameral, bipartisan legislation
that mandates the inclusion of conduit--plastic pipes which
house fiber optic cables--during road construction receiving
Federal funding. H.R. 2785, the Community Broadband Act is
bicameral legislation that removes roadblocks for public-
private partnerships and locally owned broadband systems. H.R.
2784, the Clearing Local Impediments Makes Broadband Open to
New Competition and Enhancements (CLIMB ONCE) Act helps local
communities streamline the pole attachment process to make the
deployment of broadband faster, cheaper, and more competitive.
H.R. 530, the Accelerating Broadband Development by Empowering
Local Communities Act of 2019, repeals FCC regulations that
unfairly limit the ability of local governments to regulate 5G
infrastructure. The committee should consider including these
priorities in the LIFT America Act.
I'm also pleased the LIFT America Act includes bipartisan
legislation I introduced, H.R. 2760, the Next Generation 9-1-1
Act of 2019, which authorizes $12 billion in Federal grant
funding for State and local governments to deploy IP-based Next
Generation 9-1-1 (NG 911) technology across the country. The
upgrades are urgently needed to help move the country's legacy
9-1-1 call centers into the digital age, enabling them to
handle text messages, pictures, videos, and other information
sent by smartphones, tablets, and other devices when faced with
an emergency. The legislation also provides technical
assistance and training, while ensuring 9-1-1 is kept under
State and local control.
The LIFT America Act also makes key investments in the
development and deployment of clean energy technology, by
investing in programs to modernize our electricity grid,
retrofit homes and schools to reduce carbon emissions, reduce
emissions from aging diesel vehicles, expand our renewable
energy infrastructure, and install solar panels in
disadvantaged communities.
The LIFT America Act also reauthorizes the Energy
Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program which provides
grants to State and local governments to help them reduce
fossil fuel emissions and conserve energy. This program is the
largest Federal investment in clean energy at the local level,
and I'm pleased to be a cosponsor of the standalone bill H.R.
2088 which is identical to this provision of the LIFT America
Act.
Finally, the healthcare provisions of the LIFT America Act
make important investments in our Nation's public health
infrastructure. State, Tribal, and local public health
departments are on the front lines of prevention and response
activities that keep Americans safe and healthy. Much of our
public health infrastructure, including labs that monitor and
detect outbreaks and the hospitals that respond in public
health emergencies, are underprepared to respond to today's
emerging public health threats. The LIFT America Act builds on
existing grant programs and creates new programs to fund the
development and modernization of our Nation's labs, hospitals,
clinics, and public health departments.
The word ``infrastructure'' for many means roads and
bridges, but our infrastructure needs to go beyond
transportation to include energy, broadband, healthcare, clean
water, and other infrastructure needs. The LIFT America Act
makes critical investments to repair our aging infrastructure
and address the challenges facing our Nation of closing the
digital divide, addressing the climate crisis, and improving
public health.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Adam Kinzinger
I thank Chairman Pallone for holding this hearing, and I
also want to thank the Ranking Republican, Mr. Walden, for his
statement which outlined a lot of the great work this committee
has done in recent years to bolster infrastructure in America.
After providing for our defense and national security, the
most important role for the Federal Government is to facilitate
interstate commerce through infrastructure.
A strong American infrastructure is vital for our country
to be able to compete globally, foster local and regional
economic development, and create jobs and wealth. It is
imperative that the United States works to build a 21st century
infrastructure system by looking for long-term solutions to our
challenges and embracing American innovation.
It's no secret that bridges and roads are deteriorating
across the country. In my home State of Illinois, we have more
than 2,000 bridges that are structurally deficient or
functionally obsolete, and 73 percent of the State's roads are
in poor or mediocre condition.
It is paramount that we maintain the safety and efficiency
of the roads, bridges, waterways, and mass transit systems that
Americans rely on every day. We must keep our communities
connected so that we may bring together the resources that
drive our economy and create jobs around the country.
For decades, both Republicans and Democrats have agreed on
these fundamental principles. More recently, calls have been
growing within the public and here in Washington to not only
repair our existing infrastructure, but to ``go big'' and think
about the future of our infrastructure needs.
We must plan for and facilitate the safe and smooth
introduction of autonomous vehicles. We must look into new
construction materials so that we are building things to last
rather than throw good money after bad. We must address the
serious disparities for rural communities, like those in my
district, regarding access to broadband services. And we must
be smarter and more efficient not only with respect to the
various modes of transportation, but with the ways we design
and construct buildings.
I am proud of the bipartisan work Congress was able to
accomplish in the past two Congresses with a 5-year, fully
paid-for surface transportation bill, not to mention all other
transportation and infrastructure related authorizations such
as the FAA Reauthorization, WRDA, the PIPES Act, and more.
I am also proud that two bipartisan bills that I developed
with two of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
included in this package.
I worked with Mr. McNerney to reintroduce the Smart Energy
and Water Efficiency Act, which would establish a pilot program
to demonstrate technology-based solutions to increase the
energy efficiency of water, waste water, and water reuse
systems. And we were able to craft this bill in a way that it
would not require new funding.
I also worked with Mr. Welch to reintroduce the Smart
Building Acceleration Act, which would accelerate the
implementation of smart building technology to increase energy
efficiency and demonstrate the costs and benefits of these
technologies when applied to Federal property. And again, we
were able to write this bill at no new costs to the taxpayer.
These two provisions reflect how we can work together and
make compromises with one another to achieve a greater good. I
am disappointed, however, that the Federal Government has yet
to enact a much-needed infrastructure package, and I believe
it's safe to say I'm not the only one. I hear it all the time
here in these halls, and I hear it even more when I'm visiting
with constituents back home. Republicans and Democrats agree on
the needs--and I sincerely hope this bill and this hearing is
an important step forward--but we cannot seem to agree on the
scope of such a package and the mechanisms to pay for it.
Some difficult decisions must be made soon, and it should
go without saying that both political parties are going to have
to give a little in order to make progress on behalf of our
constituencies.
If both sides continue sticking to the ``my way or the
highway'' approach, I can comfortably predict there will be
``no way'' for this effort to materialize.
In closing, I will say that I am not thrilled about every
provision contained in the legislative package being discussed
today, but I think it serves as an opportunity for Members to
roll up our sleeves, hash things out, and craft a deal. Not
much good can happen without compromise and bipartisanship.
It hope that we can build on this hearing and move towards
a strong bipartisan package that the Energy and Commerce
Committee can bring to the table as we work with the other
committees of jurisdiction to get this done.
I thank the chairman and ranking member, and with that, I
yield back.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]