[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2021
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina, Chairman
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan WILL HURD, Texas
NORMA J. TORRES, California
PETE AGUILAR, California
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mrs. Lowey, as chairwoman of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Joseph Carlile, Winnie Chang, Josephine Eckert, Angela Ohm,
Sarah Puro, Rebecca Salay, and Gladys Barcena
Subcommittee Staff
_______
PART 5
Page
Department of Transportation Budget Request ..................... 1
------
Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget Request ...... 155
------
Federal Aviation Administration Budget Request .................. 235
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Part 5--TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED
AGENCIES FOR 2021
DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2021
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina, Chairman
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan WILL HURD, Texas
NORMA J. TORRES, California
PETE AGUILAR, California
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mrs. Lowey, as chairwoman of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Joseph Carlile, Winnie Chang, Josephine Eckert, Angela Ohm,
Sarah Puro, Rebecca Salay, and Gladys Barcena
Subcommittee Staff
________
PART 5
Page
Department of Transportation Budget Request ...................... 1
.................................
------
Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget Request ...... 155
..............
------
Federal Aviation Administration Budget Request .................. 235
.................................
------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
43-030 WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
NITA M. LOWEY, New York, Chairwoman
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio KAY GRANGER, TEXAS
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana HAROLD ROGERS, KENTUCKY
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, ALABAMA
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, IDAHO
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina JOHN R. CARTER, TEXAS
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California KEN CALVERT, CALIFORNIA
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia TOM COLE, OKLAHOMA
BARBARA LEE, California MARIO DIAZ-BALART, FLORIDA
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota TOM GRAVES, GEORGIA
TIM RYAN, Ohio STEVE WOMACK, ARKANSAS
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland JEFF FORTENBERRY, NEBRASKA
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, TENNESSEE
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, WASHINGTON
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine DAVID P. JOYCE, OHIO
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois ANDY HARRIS, MARYLAND
DEREK KILMER, Washington MARTHA ROBY, ALABAMA
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania MARK E. AMODEI, NEVADA
GRACE MENG, New York CHRIS STEWART, UTAH
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin STEVEN M. PALAZZO, MISSISSIPPI
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts DAN NEWHOUSE, WASHINGTON
PETE AGUILAR, California JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, MICHIGAN
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, FLORIDA
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois WILL HURD, TEXAS
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
NORMA J. TORRES, California
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
ED CASE, Hawaii
Shalanda Young, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Witnesses
Page
Carson, Hon. Ben, M.D., Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development.............................................. 155
Answers to submitted questions............................... 191
Chao, Hon. Elaine L., Secretary, U.S. Department of
Transportation................................................. 6
Answers to submitted questions............................... 32
Dickson, Hon. Steve, Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration................................................. 238
Answers to submitted questions............................... 261
DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, HUD, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
FOR 2021
----------
Thursday, February 27, 2020
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUDGET REQUEST
WITNESS
HON. ELAINE L. CHAO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Price. The subcommittee will come to order. Good
morning, everyone. I am pleased to kick off the subcommittee
hearing season for this and other subcommittees, by examining
the fiscal year 2021 budget request for our Department of
Transportation.
Secretary Chao, welcome back. And thank you for joining us.
Glad to have you here.
The infrastructure serves as a foundation for our economy
and our quality of life. It facilitates the flow of goods and
services, connects people to employment and educational
opportunities, and it plays a significant role in our Nation's
overall welfare.
There is no question our country requires a massive
infusion of investment to repair deficient bridges, restore our
transit systems to a state of good repair, improve our ports,
build new runways for our airports. We must also make forward-
looking investments in new services across all modes, including
projects that expand inner city passenger rail, and improved
options for cyclists and pedestrians, with the renewed focus on
safety, on environmental sustainability, and on resiliency in
the face of climate change and other perils.
On this front it is especially disappointing to see the
Department continue to push a deeply flawed rule making seeking
to roll back fuel efficiency standards developed under the
previous administration. If finalized the proposal would
increase pollution and emissions resulting in higher public
health expenditures, and cause consumers millions at the pump.
I urge the Department to reverse course.
After seemingly endless Trump administration infrastructure
weeks that have failed to materialize into meaningful action,
this subcommittee has done its part to boost investment under
both the Republican and Democratic House majorities.
During the past 3 years, beginning out of the chairmanship
of my good friend, Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, we have
appropriated nearly $16 billion above authorized levels for
highways, transit, rail, maritime and aviation infrastructure
programs.
I am proud of what the subcommittee and its members have
achieved, at the same time, you know, we often call this a down
payment, I think that is inadequate, and an apt metaphor, it is
a down payment, but it is not the comprehensive infrastructure
approach we need. We all know that. We need to find real pay
force to balance the Highway Trust Fund, and to put us on a
more sustainable path forward.
As part of the budget's submission, the administration has
put forward $810-billion 10-year reauthorization proposal. This
is certainly an improvement over previous plans that relied on
unrealistic assumptions about private investment, and sought to
push cost onto cash-strapped states and localities. But it
falls short still of the levels proposed by transportation
leaders in the House and Senate, and the plan lacks significant
details about policy programs, and most importantly, how all
this is going to be paid for.
It is one thing to keep our options open, although the
expiration of the FAST Act already upon us, the President needs
to get serious about negotiating with Congress and finding new
revenues for the infrastructure that virtually everyone agrees
is necessary for our shared prosperity.
Turning now to the administration's fiscal 2021 budget
request, the Department proposes roughly $89 billion in total
budgetary resources which is $2 billion or 2.3 percent more
than the fiscal 2020 enacted level.
However, the request for discretionary budget authority is
$21.9 billion which is $2.9 billion, or 12 percent below the
current year. That is a strange move for a President who has
posed as the champion of infrastructure.
There are some bright spots, including another robust
request for the oversubscribed TIGER/BUILD Grant Program. I am
also especially pleased to see funding for new transit projects
in the Capital Investment Grant pipeline.
I will note, however, that the CIG Program at the end of
the 2019 fiscal year had roughly $1.2 billion in unallocated
and unobligated carryover funds. Combined with the fiscal 2020
funds that we just appropriated, that total rises to about $2
billion, essentially a full year of CIG appropriations.
We know there are many worthy transit projects across the
country seeking this funding. We need additional assurances
backed by action that the Department will administer this
program in an expeditious manner, consistent with congressional
intent.
I also have serious concerns about the treatment of rail
programs in the budget, which would slash investment in
Amtrak's busy Northeast Corridor, eliminate the Federal-State
Partnership for State of Good Repair, and shift the cost of
long-distance service onto the states.
These proposals were roundly rejected on a bicameral,
bipartisan basis this year. We had hoped they wouldn't recur in
the budget request. Unfortunately, the budget also eliminates
the popular Port Infrastructure Development Program, it cuts
NHTSA's vehicle safety programs by nearly 10 percent when we
were grappling with new safety challenges posed by automatic
vehicles, large trucks, and distracted driving.
And finally, while their request would eliminate
supplemental airport grants, it does propose $35.5 million to
augment FAA aviation safety activities in the wake of the
Boeing MAX disasters. There are new talents with critical
skills, to increase oversight, and to bolster data analysis. We
provided similar investments in the Fiscal 2020 Omnibus
package, to ensure that our skies remain safe for the flying
public. We need to learn more about this proposal, and how the
agency plans to use these resources.
So, Secretary Chao, we look forward to your testimony
today, in working with you to ensure that DOT has the funding
that it needs to carry out its critical mission. I would now
like to turn to our distinguished Ranking Member Mr. Diaz-
Balart for any remarks he wants to make.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
thank you for holding this hearing today. This is the first of
our fiscal year 2020-21 budget hearings. And if this is
anything like last year, it will be a great hearing season
under the chairmanship of Mr. Price. I would like to say, Mr.
Chairman, you are the second-best chairman of this
subcommittee.
All kidding aside, he has done a phenomenal job and this
has been an attitude of working together, it has really been a
partnership, and I am grateful for the way that you have
handled your chairmanship, sir.
Secretary Chao, look, I just need to thank you again, and
welcome you back to the subcommittee. This is the fourth
appearance before the THUD subcommittee of this remarkable
public servant. Since your first appearance before us in 2017,
together we made some significant progress, improving our
Nation's roads, railways, seaports and airports.
In recent years when we have had these budget negotiations,
dealing with the budget caps, they have emphasized
infrastructure investments, and the largest portion of new
infrastructure investments have been at Department of
Transportation, that you so ably, frankly, lead.
And I have to tell you, you have been a remarkable partner
in this effort. I have said this to you privately, and I
expressed it publicly before, but I think it merits being
repeated. As well as your team, by the way, and your staff,
they have done a remarkable job working day in and day out to
get those resources to our states, and to our localities, but
doing so while protecting the taxpayer in an efficient manner.
And so, both you and your staff I think have done a remarkable
job.
Our communities are already seeing the results. As you
know, Madam Secretary, that these investments improve
transportation networks that help our businesses create jobs,
and improve the quality of life of the folks that we represent.
Madam Secretary, you help to celebrate one such example.
Just earlier this month in Florida, when you announced a grant
for Port Miami, which will dramatically, dramatically increase
the capacity of the port to, again, provide the economic
benefits for the entire region.
And I want to paraphrase it, you have said it many times,
my staff reminds me all the time. At another hearing here, you
talk about how ports are the engine of economic growth in our
country, and it is so true. Again, thank you for your vision
and leadership on this project, Madam Secretary, and for
working with this subcommittee to roll out what is really a new
port program, infrastructure port program development that was
created by this subcommittee.
And so again, no surprise, you have done a great job in
rolling out that new program. I am pleased to see that your
budget's request, it places very high priority on DOT safety
mission, the request of the Federal Aviation Administration of
$17.5 billion, including full support for the Air Traffic
Controller workforce, and targeted investments for aviation
safety.
The FAA facilities and equipment programs would receive $3
billion in that budget, which will help us continue to
modernize air traffic control system. Again, this will improve
both safety and efficiency which has a high priority of both
the chairman, and myself, and clearly it has been your priority
as well, Madam Secretary.
Transit Capital Investment Grants are slated to receive
$1.9 billion in our request to meet all commitments on
currently-funded grant agreements, and an additional $775
million for new projects that are expected to be ready for a
grant agreement in 2021.
Now, I will tell you that working with my constituents in
Southern Florida and parts of Miami, I have seen firsthand how
complicated transit projects are to come together, and I am
pleased that we have such a strong, strong Federal partner in
that effort.
I believe this subcommittee has a special role to play in
advancing our shared priorities for transportation
infrastructure. In fact, I have said repeatedly that the THUD
bill, and Mr. Chairman, you have said it as well, right, and
you mentioned it a little while ago, frankly is the
infrastructure bill until something else may hopefully come
along. This is evident in the major investments that we have
made in recent years through this subcommittee.
Now I, however, recognize that there is a major task ahead
of us, as we face the expiration of the FAST Act at the end of
this fiscal year.
Madam Secretary, you have outlined a really bold proposal,
of in essence a trillion dollars in new surface transportation
investments over the next 10 years. I know you are working
through the details of this legislative proposal, and I look
forward to hearing about those efforts today, and in the months
that come, and working with you on, again, what is a very,
very, very bold proposal.
Our infrastructure investments over the next decade will
help determine America's role in the world for the next
century. The task clearly will not be easy. So, I will again,
as we always have, call on my colleagues and the administration
to come together, and do this jointly for the good of the
American people, again, to get this job done.
I am grateful, Madam Secretary, for the attitude that you
have always had of inclusiveness, of thinking outside the box,
of looking at things in new and fresh ways, and not just assume
that because they were done some way for so many years, that
that is the best way to do that, and I have no doubt that that
tradition that you have brought to the leadership of your
position will continue to bear fruit for the American people.
So, again, thank you, Secretary Chao, for your appearance
today, but more important for your service to our Nation. And
with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you. And now we turn to the chairwoman of
our full committee, Mrs. Lowey.
The Chairwoman. Thank you very much, Chairman Price, and
Ranking Member Diaz-Balart for holding this important hearing.
And welcome, Secretary Chao, and thank you for being here
today.
Secretary Chao, you and I had a very productive meeting 2
weeks ago, and I was very impressed with your candor, your
knowledge, your willingness to work in partnership. It is my
hope that we can maintain and grow this very positive
relationship; and thank you for being here today.
However, I must note several gross inadequacies in the
budget, including a $374.5 million decrease for Northeast
Corridor grants to Amtrak, a $90 million decrease to capital
investment grants, elimination of Federal State partnership for
state of good repair grants. No proposal to pay for crucial
spending for roads, bridges and transit that comes from the
highway Trust Fund.
These decreases and eliminations would seriously jeopardize
safety of the traveling public. These proposals are posed by
the American people, and bipartisan majorities in both
chambers. While this proposal was better than in previous
years, the committee will continue prioritizing safety.
As I mentioned during our meeting, I am very pleased that
the Department has made the Portal North Bridge eligible to
advance toward funding. And I look forward to seeing that
happen soon, and I thank you very much for your efforts.
However, neglecting to advance the Hudson Tunnel project is
a political decision that endangers the safety of travelers who
pass through the tunnel every day. Our current infrastructure
is in such desperate need of repair, by preparing for the
future must also mean ensuring continuity of service,
sustaining safety and increasing capacity.
An unplanned closure of the Hudson Tunnel would be
disastrous for our economy, and disrupt the lives of hundreds
of thousands of daily commuters. In fact, closure of one of the
2 tubes in the existing tunnel, a partial shutdown, has been
estimated to cost the national economy $16 billion. The bottom
line is that while the Hudson Tunnel project, an entire gateway
program, is integral to New York and New Jersey, it is so much
more than that.
If we don't make the necessary investments in the gateway
program today, our Nation's greatest economy and security will
suffer. So, I look forward to a productive discussion today.
This budget request, however, does not reflect the good work
that I know we can do together.
Congress has consistently rejected the administration's
proposed cuts that would shortchange our national
infrastructure, instead passing responsible funding levels.
So, I want to thank you again, for being here today. I look
forward to your testimony and I look forward to working
together. Thank you.
Mr. Price. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Granger, the
Ranking Member of the full committee.
Ms. Granger. Thank you very much. I would like to thank
Chairman Price and Ranking Member Diaz-Balart for holding this
hearing on the Department of Transportation's fiscal year 2021
request.
Welcome, Secretary Chao. It has been a great honor to work
with you over the years, and particularly as your role as
Secretary of Transportation. But I remember beginning as a
first year member of Congress bringing an almost impossible
request for my district and you made it possible. And I never
forget that ever, nor does my district.
I live in the fourth largest metropolitan region in the
country, and transportation is greatly important to my
constituents.
I appreciate the work that you and your staff have done to
make life better for the people who live and work in my
district. I appreciate this Administration's emphasis on
reducing regulatory burdens and cutting red tape, and I look
forward to hearing what you have to say about those efforts.
I also appreciate the safety of our highways and our
railroads and air traffic system. It remained a major priority.
I know you personally focused on DOT safety mission. I look
forward to hearing more about your achievements in that area as
well.
We all know there is much work to be done to build our
infrastructure and ensure the safety of our roads and our
railways and our skies. I look forward to hearing from you and
how we can continue to work together to achieve these goals,
the responsible investment in our Nation's infrastructure,
Secretary Chao. Thank you for your continued work and the help
you give to people like me. I look forward to hearing from you.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Madam Secretary, please proceed. We
will of course place your entire statement in the record, but
we will look forward to your presentation for 5 minutes or so
and then we will have plenty of questions, so please proceed.
Thank you.
Secretary Chao. Thank you Chairman Price, Ranking Member
Diaz-Balart, chairman and ranking of the full committee for
being here, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the President's Fiscal Year 2021 budget
request for the Department of Transportation.
The President is requesting a total of $89 billion to
support transportation programs, an overall 2 percent increase
above funds provided in the Fiscal Year 2020 Appropriations
Act. This represents the largest increase in the budget of the
U.S. Department of Transportation.
This funding will enable the department to continue our
important work in providing Americans with safe and dependable
transportation, help deliver infrastructure more quickly, and
prepare for the future in an era of rapid innovation.
The President is requesting $1 trillion to rebuild,
restore, and renew our Nation's infrastructure. And this
request includes 2 parts. First, the President's budget
envisions a 10-year surface reauthorization proposal that will
provide a historical $810 billion for surface transportation.
And then secondly, $190 billion for other infrastructure
improvements, including bridges and freight bottlenecks. And
this comprises the $1 trillion infrastructure proposal that
this Administration has.
In this proposal we recommend an authorization that
provides for more flexibility for the states and other
stakeholders, it includes program and policy changes that will
help deliver modern infrastructure more rapidly while ensuring
that both rural and urban areas receive the assistance that
they need.
In addition, it provides significant investments for
rebuilding and repairing highways and bridges by using flexible
grants and modern innovative finance tools that will help to
get projects moving more quickly. It is also time to end the
unreasonable delays that are keeping communities from getting
the infrastructure that they need.
So the department's discretionary grant programs address a
wide variety of infrastructure needs benefiting both urban and
rural areas. And towards this end the President's discretionary
budget includes $1 billion for the Infrastructure for
Rebuilding America, or the INFA Grant Programs. And it includes
an additional $1 billion for the better utilizing investments
to leverage developments or build grant programs.
And with respect to transit, the President's budget
includes nearly $1.9 billion for the Federal Transit
Administration Capital Investment Programs, the CIGs. This
request funds the current portfolio of transit projects that
have signed full funding grant agreements. And in addition, it
provides another $925 million for new projects that may become
eligible for funding during fiscal year 2021. Again, this is
one of the highest funded budgets for Federal Transit
Administration.
Turning to aviation, the President's budget recommends
$17.5 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration. This
includes nearly a billion dollars across the programs to
support the ongoing work of NexGen.
The President's budget also commits $1.5 billion for
aviation safety. And this includes an increase of $37 million
to fund targeted investments to improve FAA's ability to
respond to specific issues, like Boeing 737 MAXs, analyze
safety trends, and improve accountability. These funds will
also be used to establish a centralized organization
designation authorization office.
And the President's budget, once again, includes $300
million for the National Security Multi-Mission Vessel
Replacement Program. And this program continues the
administration's effort to replace the aging school ships for
our State maritime academies.
Turning to rail, I also want to highlight some key actions
that the department is taking to advance the restoration of
assets in the northeast corridor. First, the FRA will release
an environmental assessment for the replacement of the Sawtooth
Bridge in the near future. This bridge, a component of a
Gateway Program, is a key choke point for the northeast
corridor, transiting about 350 trains each day.
Second, due to a lot of hard work on the part of New Jersey
Transit, the Portal Bridge Project Proposal just achieved a
medium/high rating for the first time. And the Federal Transit
Administration has been working closely with the project
sponsors since the new rating makes it eligible to advance. And
they are working to resolve final details in order to move the
project into engineering.
Finally, I'm pleased to report that the department is
working closely with Amtrak to advance rehabilitation work on
the existing Hudson Tunnel, also known as the North River
Tunnel. Given the time, the cost, and the complexity of
building an entirely new tunnel, the department is working with
Amtrak to design and validate a faster and more cost effective
method to improve safety and functionality in this tunnel as
the first order of business. So beginning rehab work in the
near term is a right move, and not waiting years for the
construction of a new tunnel beforehand.
So new and innovative methods for repairing the North River
Tunnel, the Hudson Tunnel, while still in operation, could
allow Amtrak to commence repairs in this tunnel as much as 10
years ahead of schedule.
So these are some of the key programs included in the
President's fiscal year budget request.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear
before you today, and I will be happy to answer any questions
that you and other members may have.
Mr. Price. Thank you very much. And I want to lead with a
question of some urgency.
It involves the coronavirus outbreak and your department's
role in the response effort. There are a number of aspects of
this that I would appreciate your touching on.
How is the department coordinating with other Federal
agencies, including the CDC and the State Department, to
respond to the outbreak? How are you engaging with airports,
airlines, mass transit agency and other transportation
providers to ensure that the right data is collected and
shared? How are you engaging with your international
counterparts? And most importantly, how are you communicating
with the traveling public?
Secretary Chao. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to answer those questions because they are certainly very
important. And as you mentioned, the department is a member of
the coronavirus Taskforce, the main responsibility for
coordinating response and efforts on this issue is DHS,
Department of Homeland Security, and of course Health and Human
Service Department, along with CDC, Center for Disease Control.
So for the Department of Transportation, that coordinating
role is one that deals primarily with, as you mentioned,
airlines, both domestic and international, and working with DHS
at ports of entry, and also working with the international
agencies.
So that coordination role has included being involved in
the air bridge to bring thousands of American citizens,
nationals, safely home from China and Japan, to continue air
and cargo traffic between the United States and China, free
health screening at 11 designated airports in the United States
for American passengers who have traveled in coronavirus
stricken areas. Four, we have been involved in health protocols
to protect the crews of aircrafts continuing to fly between the
United States and foreign designations. And five, health
messages about the coronavirus for airlines to inform their
passengers.
And as the President says, these containment measures have
been effective, but we must be vigilant and plan for the
possibility of community-based transmission in the United
States. We will be coordinating similar efforts with transit
stakeholders as part of this whole of government plan as well.
Mr. Price. Will you say something about the international
community, the international counterparts that you are working
with?
Secretary Chao. We work with our counterparts,
international counterparts. DHS, and of course HHS and CDC work
with theirs as well. But we work with the aviation industry
internationally to work on screening incoming passengers at
foreign airports, so this means that we have to deal with
international aviation authorities overseas. And to date
approximately 15,000 returning American nationals have been
vetted.
And we have also DOT transportation department, has also
worked with international health agencies to distribute health
information, placards, brochures to passengers and cargo
airlines that continue to provide services between the U.S. and
China.
We also work with international maritime organizations as
well, although that is not our main equity. The Coast Guard and
DHS has the bulk of the responsibility in dealing with cruise
ships, for example, that come into the United States.
Mr. Price. Well thank you. We appreciate that update and
those efforts. And I think we are all coming to realize what we
have got to prepare for here. We hope for the best of course,
but prepare for the worst. And your department is going to be
on the front lines of the effort, as are the transportation
providers that you work with.
I will turn to Mr. Diaz-Balart next. I have of course other
questions, but we will defer and move on with our Ranking
Member.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are putting
me on the spot by speaking less, not taking a lot of your time,
right?
And again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing up the
coronavirus issue. And again, Madam Secretary, obviously for
the fact that you are clearly on top of it.
Let me just switch the conversation to a totally different
area, which is the South Florida Air Space Redesign, known as
Metroplex. So I understand that the FAA is about to undertake
an air space Metroplex resign in Southern Florida with
potential airplane noise impacts on communities around Miami
International Airport. So let me throw 3 questions at you,
Madam Secretary, if I may.
In essence, what is the schedule for this air space
redesign, if you have that? What are the FAA's plans to engage
the community on the noise impacts of this redesign? And also,
will the FFA dedicate staff potentially to engage with affected
communities in the greater Miami area?
Secretary Chao. Mr. Ranking Member, anything in Southern
Florida is a priority for us.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Can I interrupt you? By the way, you have
demonstrated that and I am very grateful. Thank you.
Secretary Chao. Currently the South Central Florida
Metroplex is in the evaluation stage with the draft EA,
Environmental Assessment. We expect, hopefully, later this
spring, early summer, around, hopefully, May 2020. And then the
final EA and corresponding record of decision, which is 2 very
important co-joined events on the project, is tentatively
scheduled for early fall, 2020.
Implementation procedures are expected in April, June, and
August 2021. So we are working closely with South Central
Florida Metroplex. If everything goes according to schedule I
think you can expect that.
And as for needed personnel, we have assigned, we believe,
the needed staff to pay attention to this and make sure that it
is on track.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And again, your staff has been amazingly
accessible, as you have personally. So obviously I look forward
to, as that process continues, to stay in touch with you.
And I am glad the ranking member of the full committee is
here because in the 2020, again, totally different issue,
dealing with China now.
In the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act it included
the Transit Infrastructure Vehicle Security Act. This
legislation prohibits Federal Transit Administration funds from
being used to purchase rolling stock from China state-owned or
supported companies. That probation takes in effect on 2021.
The reason that I am glad that the ranking member is here
is because that is an effort that you started in the
Appropriations Committee, and low and behold it started getting
more and more support, for obvious reasons. So I am grateful to
you for your efforts. I put it in the subcommittee here with
the chairman's help and everybody else. But that was your
effort and, again, a very important effort.
This legislation obviously received bipartisan support. And
it will provide, you know, critical economic national
securities protections for the rail industry in our transit
system and infrastructure. Obviously I have had long-standing
concerns about that issue is well, and which is why I worked
again with Ms. Granger and the members of the subcommittee on
that issue.
So now 2 months have passed since the NDA enactment, and I
am hearing concerns that transit agencies are unaware of how
this law will affect their current and future procurements.
Just, Madam Secretary, have you had an opportunity to look
at that, and what steps is DOT taking to comply with this
legislation, what has the department done to date to inform
those transit agencies of the prohibition? Because obviously
some might get impacted. This is a national security issue. And
I am glad that took place, but I want to make sure that the
transit agencies around the country are aware of it.
Secretary Chao. We are very much aware of this issue.
Obviously this is an important issue with implications that you
have just mentioned. The FTA is currently working with the U.S.
Trade Representative's office to confirm which countries are
impacted by NDA language, and develop direction and guidance to
inform FTA grantees of these procurement restrictions. So we
are in the process of preparing that plan.
And then FTA will likely use its certification and
assurance processes to enforce this provision as well. So this
is a top of center issue, we are very much aware of it. And
obviously it is very much in the press as well.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Mr. Chairman,
in the 8 seconds that I have left, I am also concerned about
airports purchasing passenger bridges from, again, state-backed
enterprise from the Chinese regime. And I will spend some time
with you, Mr. Chairman, on that as well.
Thank you for your help and your leadership. And, Madam
Secretary, it is an issue that I will also bring up to you and
your staff when we have a little bit more time. Thank you so
much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Chao,
good to see you again. I want to make it clear that no one
disagrees that the existing Hudson Tunnel is in need of
rehabilitation. The tunnel opened in 1910, that's 110 years
ago, and was damaged during Super Storm Sandy. But
rehabilitating the existing tunnel does not increase capacity.
It is important, and I thank you for your work, but it does not
increase capacity on the northeast corridor. So, without a new
tunnel and two new tracks, bringing the system to four total,
the bottlenecks will continue to limit Amtrak and commuter rail
which prevents economic growth throughout the northeast. So, as
we have discussed, just rehabilitating the current tunnel is a
non-starter.
So, Madam Secretary, I am pleased the Portal North Bridge,
a key component of the Gateway program to remove rail
bottlenecks along the northeast corridor, is now eligible to
move forward in the Capital Investment Grant process. However,
in the last year, FTA has finalized only two full-funding grant
agreements for new start projects, none for core capacity
projects. Key projects like Portal North and Trans Bay in
California are waiting. There are more than $600 million in
core capacity funds that this committee has appropriated which
FTA has not even allocated to projects. We increased FTA's
budget last year so it could process these projects more
quickly.
So, Madam Secretary, what concrete steps is FTA undertaking
to hasten the approval of new starts and core capacity projects
other than small starts projects?
Secretary Chao. Thank you very much. Thank you for giving
me the opportunity to clarify that point. I did not say that we
do not need a second tunnel. Right now, the plan is to build a
second tunnel, which will take 7 to 10 years, and then go back
and rehabilitate the current tunnel. And what we are suggesting
at the Department is can we not do this concurrently, take a
look at the existing tunnel, repair that while we are preparing
for the second tunnel. Having said that, the Hudson Tunnel
still has not been able to earn more than a medium-low rating.
It has got to get higher. New Jersey did it; and I know the
competition between New Jersey and New York is fierce; and so,
New Jersey beat New York to this one, and I am sure New York is
not very happy about that, but they have got to get their
rating up to at least a medium-high for us to be able to talk
about further financing. So, if I can clarify that. Thank you.
The second thing about FTA, I think the situation is better
than what you just painted. The Department was allocated all of
$2.5 billion in fiscal year 2017. So, there is, literally, no
dollars that is unallocated. Fiscal year 2018, we had $2.6
billion, and we have allocated everything except for 40.7
million; and then in fiscal year 2019, we had a $1.57 billion,
and we have allocated all of that, basically; and just last
week, we allocated $865 million in fiscal year 2020 CIG Grants.
So, since January 2017, this administration has awarded 22 CIG
construction grant agreements; advanced 23 projects into CIG
project development; and advanced 9 projects into CIG
engineering.
So, I think, we are accelerating. In the beginning, we were
a little bit slow because we were a new team getting into
place; but, I think, we can take a look at the figures here. I
think you are pretty pleased with what we have done.
The Chairwoman. Oh, I see, I am running out of time. I do
hope that your plans to continue to repair the current tunnel
move forward because it is essential.
Secretary Chao. Yes; absolutely.
TheChairwoman. I worry about and realize it.
Secretary Chao. Absolutely. We are not saying----
The Chairwoman. As I look forward--I appreciated that last
meeting we had--and I look forward to talking to you and the
Governors of New York and New Jersey and see what we can do to
move the whole plan, the project, for the new tunnel as quickly
as we can because we know it is essential. So, I thank you.
Secretary Chao. Look forward to working with you.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Ms. Granger.
Ms. Granger. Secretary Chao, regulatory requirements,
environmental reviews often delay State and local plans to
rebuild infrastructure. I appreciate that the Trump
administration is committed to reducing these burdens. Can you
outline steps that you have taken to reduce these burdens for
DOT's grantees; and what are your plans to make further
progress in this area?
Secretary Chao. I am so sorry; I did not hear the question.
Oh. This is a huge issue, obviously, for all of us; for anyone
of us who care about infrastructure. When I go into different
communities, I am just horrified sometimes to learn how long it
takes for new projects to be moved along and finished. So, this
administration has made it a priority to reduce the regulatory
burden and streamline the environmental standards without
comprising safety or environmental protection. So, the
President's one federal decision was an unprecedented level of
cooperation and collaboration within the Federal Government
Executive Branch itself. And late last year, the Department
announced our rule-on-rules that would codify a series of
important reforms to the Department's Rulemaking Guidance and
Enforcement Practices.
As you have heard, the Hoover Dam took 4 years to build. I
recently, just last year, 2 years ago, went up to Alaska to
give one of the final approvals for construction for the
Sterling Highway. It took 37 years. Clearly, that is
unacceptable. Communities are not able to function and have the
quality of life that they deserve when so many of these
projects are so terribly delayed. So, permitting reform and
regulatory reform are top priorities of this administration.
Ms. Granger. That is wonderful. In an area like I live, the
City of Fort Worth is twice the size it was when I was mayor of
Fort Worth; and so, that enormous growth, and it has happened
all over the Dallas, Fort Worth area, and so to wait for the
highways to catch up without a program like you have got would
just be impossible to work with. So, thank you very much for
that; and I appreciate the explanation. Thank you.
Secretary Chao. Mr. Chairman, I also ask that since there
is a little lull here, there is also the notice of proposed
rulemaking on NEPA reform. I think all of us who care about
infrastructure, we will all agree that there can be
improvements in NEPA reform without compromising, again,
environmental standards, without compromising safety. So, it is
a notice of proposed rulemaking, and public comment is welcome.
Mr. Price. All right. We will scrutinize that carefully.
Thank you. Mr. Quigley.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to
Secretary Chao for being here. Secretary, you were very public
in your criticism, objections, that is, to the FCC's proposal
to change how 5.9 gigahertz spectrum can be used. The proposal
would shrink the amount of spectrum in the band for our
transportation use from 75 megahertz to 30 megahertz, and
increase the amount of spectrum available for Wi-Fi. You said
that the transportation industry needs all 75 megahertz. Can
you explain in a little more detail why the industry requires
all of this dedicated spectrum, and what will the operational
impacts be to the industry if they have to operate with only 30
megahertz?
Secretary Chao. This is a really controversial topic; and,
obviously, the real estate on the spectrum is very precious.
All I am looking out for is safety; and I just want to make
sure that as we enter a new world in which technology takes a
greater role in helping us achieve greater safety when there is
vehicle-to-vehicle communications going on with Wi-Fi; when
there is vehicle-to-buildings, vehicle-to-infrastructures;
vehicle-to-everything communications going on with the Wi-Fi
that the safety aspect not be compromised and forgotten; and
that we have the full real estate that is required. I am not
wed; the Department is not wed to any particular technology.
There have been technologies that have been talked about in the
past. We are not wed to any one technology. We believe that the
consumer should decide.
Mr. Quigley. And if I could, critics have said that the
auto industry has had 20 years to use this and just a little
bit now. How do you respond to those criticisms?
Secretary Chao. Well, I wonder the same thing as well. I
think we should be planning for this; and I want to make sure
that the mistakes in the past are not being repeated in the
future. And, again, the pace of innovation and technology is
occurring very rapidly. I want to reserve the real estate.
May I also say, the other thing also, there is some talk
about breaking up the real estate, you know, using
transportation and safety on this spectrum, 5.9, part of it,
and then move on to take another piece of real estate in the
spectrum. The problem is we do not know what the ancillary
impact would be. The Defense Department and the Commerce
Department all have concerns about adjoining real estate for
different purposes, uses, what that will do. Will there be
bleeding of certain impacts from another use of spectrum
bleeding into their sector, whatever it may be. For us, it
would be transportation safety issues.
Mr. Quigley. So, following that though, if technology is
getting so essential, why has not DOT, at this point, moved
forward with mandating the use of vehicle-to-vehicle
communications technology?
Secretary Chao. I do not think mandating will fulfill the
goal because the technology is changing so rapidly. Again, we
are not wed to any particular. The technology is changing so
rapidly; so, I do not think that the Government should be the
one deciding what technologies to use; and right now, it is not
yet set which technology is best. So, we cannot mandate any
particular technology. All we can do, I think, is to reserve
the, you know, the spectrum that is deeded. We have an ongoing
study. I realize that it is taking a lot longer than we ever
expected, but it is a complicated issue.
Mr. Quigley. Have you been briefed as to how quickly these
services could be rolled up to a significant number of
vehicles?
Secretary Chao. Yes.
Mr. Quigley. And?
Secretary Chao. And I am not--I have been briefed by many,
many parties, stakeholders. I see no clear answer; I guess is
what I am saying.
Mr. Quigley. What is the range that you have been told; how
long it would take?
Secretary Chao. We talked to scientist and they will not
even say how much. Some people think 5 years ago that it would
have been available 5 years hence, which means today; and
clearly we are not. I think one of the largest factors is
consumer acceptance. The technology can be there but if there
is not consumer acceptance of this new world that we are
talking about, then the technological pace was slow. But in any
case, there is no set or superior technology that is
universally accepted that the Government can say this is the
best technology, this is what we will deploy.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you.
Mr. Price. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, thank
you so much for being here today. I want to start with the
safety operations appropriation language dealing with the FRA.
There is 225 million committed there, but in 1995, the
Republican Congress at that time actually eliminated this user
fee that has now been brought back; and we were relying on the
private sector safety-related investments in rail
infrastructure technology and equipment. Can you give me an
idea why the decision was made to bring this fee back now?
Secretary Chao. I know that you do not like this fee, and I
know that there are others as well; so, as you mentioned, the
President's budget does proposed to impose a $50 million user
fee that would reimburse the Federal Railroad Administration
for the operational cost of rail safety, inspectors, and
activities.
I think the thinking was that, like other regulated
industries, you know, railroads benefit directly and indirectly
from the Government's efforts to assure high safety standards
and so, therefore, it is appropriate for the railroads to bear
some burden, some of the cost structure of ensuring that
safety.
Mr. Rutherford. OK; thank you. I want to shift gears now
and go to some of the traffic safety grants, and I want to
thank you, as a first responder myself, for the announcement of
the Department for the first responder's safety technology
pilot program, the D2X. Long time coming; love to see that it
is here. I appreciate that, knowing particularly the number of
officers and citizens that we lose every year as a result of
high-speed response. And so, I would like to ask, in last
year's budget we had asked for the high-risk vehicle events
study that would really kind of go along with this, I believe.
Any idea where that study is at right now? It was to look at,
you know, the fact that we had a 22 percent spike in officer
fatalities and citizen fatalities.
Secretary Chao. I am not quite sure. I know that we are
working on this. In fact, we have a $38 million multi-modal
first responder's safety technology pilot program. So, let me
take a look at that for you because, obviously, I----
Mr. Rutherford. I was not sure if the program grew out of
that study or not because I have not seen the study. But it
would make sense.
Secretary Chao. Let me take a look at it because I
certainly talk about this a lot, about the need to protect our
first responders who are putting themselves in harm's way.
Mr. Rutherford. Absolutely; and we really do appreciate
that.
Secretary Chao. Oh, I think--OK.
Mr. Rutherford. And, if I could, I want to talk a little
bit about our maritime industry and the tremendous support that
Florida has received from your office, and recognize,
specifically the Jones Act. The fact that $154 billion in total
economic output annually from this program $41 billion in labor
income for American workers every year. And in addition to
that, the Jones Act ensures that our defense capabilities in
readiness are not being outsourced to foreign nations. And in
my district alone, you know, a $2 billion annual impact from
our maritime industry because not only do we have the vessel
operators, the marine terminals, the shipyards, all the workers
that are engaged in moving the cargo as well. My question is do
you see any risk or sense that the Jones Act is in jeopardy of
being weakened or dismantled?
Secretary Chao. Well, from our point of view, the Jones Act
is the law, and we need to comply with it. So, there may be
disagreements from time-to-time within the inter-agency work
task force on this and, I think, you would know which
departments would be at odds; but from our point of it, we are
strong supporters of the Jones Act.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you. With that Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Ms. Watson Coleman.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to
see you, Madam Secretary; and it certainly is good news about
the Portal Bridge Project. I would like to know what sort of
the next steps, and if you could give us any indication what
the timeframe would be for us to see money, to dig a hole, and
to make a new bridge?
Secretary Chao. Right now, the FTA Administrator, Jane
Williams, is talking with the Portal Bridge people and, I
think, the details are important. I think it is a very, very
positive development that the rating for Portal Bridge has been
changed to medium-high.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Right.
Secretary Chao. And I have to give New Jersey a lot of
credit----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Absolutely.
Secretary Chao [continuing]. because they worked with us on
this, and they were listening. So, that is why the rating
dropped. So, now it is poised; and Jane is talking with them on
some of the details. So, they are on the path to engineering if
all goes well with the discussion of those details. And to book
engineering, that is a path to financing.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Mm-hmm. There is no way of telling us
if we are talking a year in advance, 2 years in advance? This
has been such an important project, and it is such a dangerous
bridge.
Secretary Chao. Well, they have crossed that hurdle. So, it
will not be a lack of trying on our part.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. From time-to-time it would be helpful
if we could, at least the New Jersey delegation, get an update
on where we are in this project.
Secretary Chao. Of course.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you; thank you. And thank you
for the information regarding this sort of new thinking as it
relates to the Hudson Tunnel. I really have a couple of
questions. Number 1 is I do not understand how the tunnel could
be repaired while it is still in service so I don't understand
what would be happening. And I really believe that this is new
to us and I am going to ask if you would provide a detailed
briefing on your plans to the New York and New jersey
delegations as soon as possible.
Secretary Chao. Of course.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. And the third question is, since we
are not fully embracing your idea that this one tunnel is
sufficient, one of the problems with the issue for the Hudson
Tunnel, well, there were two.
One was that there was a contention that the financing
wasn't in order but thank you, New Jersey is doing its fair
share. But the other issue is that the environmental impact
statement has been waiting forever and ever and the last time
we had an update there were like 27 items that were supposedly
identified that needed to be completed in order to have the EIS
done appropriately. I would like to know when we are on that as
well.
Secretary Chao. Of course. We wanted to be responsive on
the Hudson Tunnel, even though the Hudson Tunnel, despite a lot
of discussion, has not been able to amend or work on their plan
so that it meets the medium high rating.
This is not a rating that the non-career people do. It
really is a career process.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Yeah, I understand that.
Secretary Chao. OK. So we are not talking about one tunnel
either. So please, I want to if there is anything that I don't
want to come out of this hearing it would be that Secretary
Chao said there is only one tunnel. No, that's not. We are not
saying that at all.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. OK, what are we saying.
Secretary Chao. OK. So we are still in support of what
ever----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. A second tunnel.
Secretary Chao. Of course, yes. Because we, as Chairwoman
Lowey mentioned, we need to increase the capacity. But right
now that plan is to fund the second tunnel which would take 7
to 10 years to build, assuming good conditions and we know the
projects are always delayed so that's actually a pretty
optimistic viewpoint.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Yeah.
Secretary Chao. Then come back and fix the existing tunnel.
We actually took a page from Governor Cuomo's plan. He has a
project called Canarsie and he hired, he asked the Dean of the
Schools of Engineering of, I'll wrap it up, Cornell and
Columbia.
We want to piggy back on his idea, get those experts to
come and look at the Hudson Tunnel to see how we can in the
interim repair it and so because the safety is a major issue.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. OK. I have 31 seconds.
Secretary Chao. OK. Sorry.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. With that in mind, we very much want a
briefing.
Secretary Chao. Yes.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. On what that means.
Secretary Chao. Yes.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. How that would be accomplished, when
it would start, how long it would take. But at the same time,
we really want to understand our outstanding obligation with
regard to the EIS on the tunnel, on the Hudson Tunnel and so we
need a briefing on that as well.
Because there were specific things that were laid out that
were not sufficient but we have gotten no update and I think we
need to have the information in order to know when and where we
need to go next.
Secretary Chao. Well, there seems to be great disagreement
as to what the status and so we will be pleased to update you
because from our point of view we can't do anything unless and
until that rating by Hudson Tunnel gets improved.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If
I had more time I would ask about positive train control but I
hope that if I don't get a chance, someone else will. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Price. And if you can stay around that is good. If not
submit a question for the record, we will cover it one way or
the other.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Price. All right. Mr. Womack.
Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madame
Secretary, for your service to your country and your
leadership.
I am going to kind of throw just a general question out on
the table. As you know, Interstate 49 runs through my district
and we were the beneficiaries of a $25 million build grant in
the last couple of years that was critical to getting the
Missouri portion of this interstate connected with the Arkansas
portion of it. Still much more work to be done in the southern
part of the area where there is some unmet needs and a major
bridge over the Arkansas River.
Help me understand the President's policies toward and his
interest in making sure that we get funding out in the rural
parts of our country. I know he has made it a priority, it is a
priority of your administration.
What can we do to ensure that rural American which is in
desperate need of having the vitalization to build economies
and those kinds of things, and there is a lot of good things
going on in rural America, but what more can we do?
Secretary Chao. You know, I come from rural America. I
actually used to be from New York but I am a, now a Kentuckian,
a proud Kentuckian. And rural America is not looking for a
handout. Rural America is just looking for equity and parity.
And in previous administrations, the rural areas of our
country have been long neglected. Prior to 2017, 70 percent of
transportation dollars went to urban areas. 19 percent of our
population live in rural America and yet 46 percent of
fatalities and accidents occur on rural roads. Even though
they're in rural America, 44 percent of urbanites, urban
residents travel on rural roads and the majority of our freight
movements occur on rural roads.
So it is absolutely essential that the needs of rural
America be addressed plus bridges that are in poor condition,
the predominance, the preponderance of them are in rural
America. Bridges with weight limitations are in rural America
predominately. So we need to be making sure that rural America
is not overlooked.
So for the first time and since the last decade, we are now
ensuring that rural America is not overlooked and that there is
parity and attention and resources.
Mr. Womack. Well, I appreciate the fact that the
administration is putting a premium on getting these funds out
into the rural parts of the country because they desperately
need them.
I have a real quick question about contract tower program.
It continues to be I think one of the FAA's most successful
cost effective government industry partnerships, especially for
rural America that we just talked about. And that is the case
in my district.
As you know I have got Northwest National Airport and I
have got some other smaller airports that have contract tower
partnerships going on. Will this continue to be a priority of
the administration?
Secretary Chao. Absolutely. The FAA has fully funded all
towers participating in this program and they have also
received six additional applications, all of which are being
evaluated. So this is a very important part of the FAA's rural
America----
Mr. Womack. And may I assume that it fits within the safety
umbrella of the administration. Well, again, I want to thank
you for your time here today and for the opportunity to visit
with you personally in the office and look forward to continued
dialogue as we work together to make these issues possible.
Secretary Chao. Absolutely. Thank you.
Mr. Womack. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Ms. Lawrence.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Madame Secretary. When we last
met, I discussed the importance of the build grants to urban
areas which I represent. I appreciate the equity that we talk
about but there should never be a preference put on rural or
urban because America's all of that.
While I am pleased with the Department's recent $1 billion
budget request, I remain disappointed with the Department's
administration of the overemphasis on rural projects.
In fiscal year 2019, the State of Michigan which includes
rural sections, did not receive any, that's zero build grants,
and only received funding for rural projects in fiscal year
2017 and 2018, while other states received multiple awards in
both urban and rural communities.
Additionally, in fiscal year 2018 and 2019, the Department
opted to not distribute any planning grants. Time and time
again, cities in my district have told me how difficult it is
to prepare for large projects and often ask for help in
securing funds to assist in the initial staging.
Madame Secretary, can you briefly discuss why the planning
grants were not utilized in the past and discuss the
Department's strategy to ensure that communities are well
equipped to take advantage of these in the future?
Secretary Chao. It has been this administration's position
not to have planning grants. There have been so many entities
which have been receiving planning grants for such a long time
so we would like to see more action versus them planning,
hoping that the local entities, State and local entities, can
also step up to the plate. But I'm always willing to talk more
about that with you because there are certainly areas that do
have specific needs.
Mrs. Lawrence. And challenges.
Secretary Chao. And challenges.
Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
Secretary Chao. On the issue of grants, I wish that it were
as--well let me just say the grants are very competitive. So we
never have enough money. And in most of the grants, the monies
that we are allotted forms only $1 out of like $11 requested.
Mrs. Lawrence. If I can ask, Madame Secretary, if we have
50 states and we have a limited amount of money, how is it that
certain states and I don't want to start beating a horse here,
but certain states get multiple grants and other states get 0.
That is very hard for me to understand how the
administration is placing a priority on a certain State and
other States just get totally nothing.
Secretary Chao. We don't actually place priority on states.
Mrs. Lawrence. Well, you do have on your administration one
person assigned to your home state----
Secretary Chao. That's not true. I don't know how the
newspapers made that up. I certainly didn't ask that person.
Mrs. Lawrence. That is not true.
Secretary Chao. That's not true.
Mrs. Lawrence. OK.
Secretary Chao. He happens to be from that State but I
never asked him to be that, to do that.
Mrs. Lawrence. OK.
Secretary Chao. So I think there is--so that is not true.
Mrs. Lawrence. But they have reaped the benefits of him
being on that, on your advisory board or commission or
whatever.
Secretary Chao. No, I mean, he's----
Mrs. Lawrence. Well, Kentucky has been the highest
recipient of grants.
Secretary Chao. That's not true. Kentucky is 29th in
population and it's received like 32 ranking in terms of
grants.
Mrs. Lawrence. And Michigan has gotten none.
Secretary Chao. Well, this is a process. I don't want to--
this is a very competitive process. What Kentucky gets, what--
if you look at Illinois for example, Illinois is 12th in the
Nation in terms of population.
Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
Secretary Chao. They're No. 3 in terms of grants.
Mrs. Lawrence. OK.
Secretary Chao. So there are many examples of where there's
disproportionate share. And a lot depends on the, I don't want
to say this, a lot depends on, you know, the quality of the
project, whether it's supported by the entire delegation, how
it rates through the--what is truly a meritorious process. So
we are always interested----
Mrs. Lawrence. Well if I can make my plea then, the
planning part grants that has been not a focus of this
administration, obviously Michigan is not doing something right
because for us to not get anything.
And even the planning grants, even my rural community
projects, we only received them in 2017 and 2018. And so I will
be aggressive in seeking to sit down with you, Madame Secretary
to discuss this issue. Because for me to answer to my
constituents how this entire State of Michigan has received no
grants from this and we celebrate and say we fund the build
grant and there is nothing left. Thank you.
Secretary Chao. Well, let's continue talking.
Mr. Price. Mr. Hurd.
Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Chairman. Secretary Chao, it has been
good, great working with you especially on some national
security issues like in West Texas, the build grants that Texas
has received has helped a part of Texas that has a
disproportionate number of traffic fatalities. And it is a
region that has truly allowed us to be energy independent and
that goes along way for our national security.
As you are aware, my home State, the ranking members home
State, we only get 95 percent of the rate of return from the
Highway Trust Fund. And that means Texas is the only State year
to year that is consistently a donor State.
I know the Texas Department of Transportation and most of
the Texas delegation if not all of the Texas delegation would
love to see that 100 percent rate of return like every other
State is getting. Can you--I am--welcome some thoughts on how
we can work together to remedy this unfair burden that Texas
has to share or shoulder.
Secretary Chao. I understand your concern and your concern
with Texas being a donor State. The FAST Act basically
determines all of that. And the current appropriations formulas
are all in the FAST Act so we don't really have very much
discretion in setting those formulas.
And then also with--but within our surface reauthorization
coming up, that will be our opportunity to relook and
reconsider all of that.
Mr. Hurd. So I will work with Chairman Price on that.
Secretary Chao. It's a very contentious issue.
Mr. Hurd. I am sure our ranking member will have an opinion
on this topic when that reauthorization comes. Secretary Chao,
you also know, most of us select people for the Merchant Marine
Academies. Texas A&M Galveston, has purchased a new Merchant
Marine or is looking to purchase a new Merchant Marine ship.
Part of that is going to be for training for disaster
preparedness which the Merchant Marines are having an
increasing role and we have seen that effectiveness.
My understanding is that in the President's fiscal year
2021 budget that $300 million is allocated to Texas A&M
Galveston for that. I just wanted to confirm, is that your
understanding as well?
Secretary Chao. The $300 million is for the fourth ship
which should go to Texas.
Mr. Hurd. And my last question--I think my last, maybe my
second to last question, Ms. Secretary, you know the San
Antonio International Airport, my hometown, my home airport is
slot constrained. It is a slot constrained airport and in
giving the, given San Antonio's Military City, USA it is also
the point from which most of, a lot of our border security men
and women travel to and in from Texas and from the border
through the fact that we are restricted from flying directly
into Ronald Reagan Airport is difficult.
And to rectify this, we are not going to be able to address
this issue with--unless the projectionist beyond perimeter slot
rule is changed. Do you have any suggestions on how we can go
about addressing this issue without hamstringing current
operations?
Secretary Chao. Thank you for raising this. I know that
it's an issue that's often raised by Congress. Unfortunately,
DOT's authority in this regard, in this area is limited and it,
you know, we have historically deferred to Congress on the
appropriate number of slot exemptions for service to and from
that airport.
Mr. Hurd. Are you aware of if some of these rules were
changed whether that would have impact on the pensions of
airlines--companies that have previously worked for airplanes
are receiving pensions from airlines? Is that anything that you
are aware of?
Secretary Chao. No, I'm not aware of that.
Mr. Hurd. OK. That is something that in previous iterations
of this debate, you know, changing these rules have been
implied and I haven't been able to confirm that information
whether that is the case but I appreciate your perspective.
And, Chairman, I yield back my remaining 18 seconds.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Mrs. Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Secretary Chao,
it is really great to see you. Welcome to our committee. I want
to thank you for the call that you made to me a week and a
half, 2 weeks ago regarding the grants that were funded to the
Port of LA and Long Beach.
As you know, the Port of LA and Long Beach are not in my
district, however, they are a critical infrastructure to my
district. If we care about foreign trade, I think that we
should very much pay attention not only to the ports but to the
35th congressional district that I represent as I host all for
the infrastructure as it relates to logistics.
So imagine the impact that the ports have in the quality of
life for my constituents that are driving 40, 50, 60 miles one
way to work and the congestion that they have to go through and
competing and inching their way home or to work with big, big
trucks, right.
I want to paint a picture to you. In the morning there is a
mass exodus in my district at 5 or 6 a.m. Parents are going to
work. That means children are being left at the front door of
their school, often unattended because schools don't open until
about 8 a.m. Two or 3 hours spent on the highway one way to
work is too much to ask of a community that hosts this huge
economic engine for our entire country. And that is why I was
delighted to receive your call that you are looking to the
community and you are looking to helping to fund port activity.
I am disappointed, you know, that funding was zeroed out
and that we are now going to look at the bill and the Infagrant
to fund that. I think losing focus on specific port funding is
a mistake. That is my opinion, and I hope that you will not
lose that focus on inland ports or marine ports.
I also want to tell you that TOD funding is critically
important as we connect communities. We do not want to create
these desert communities like the suburbs that I represent
where there is very little economic activity and TOD grants are
critically important to that.
I represent a very poor working class community, planning
grants are critically important to us. My cities do not have
the staffing that is required to adhere and apply for many of
these grants. You have to have full-time staff in order to
report back on how they spent the money. I mean it is this huge
government bureaucracy. We have to figure out a way to
streamline some of those process to ensure that communities
like mine are able to apply for that funding and be able to
access that funding.
Finally I just want to say that this committee has made it
really clear that urban sprawl and overwhelming traffic in
areas like my district are challenges that should be directly
addressed by our national transportation priorities. Can we
expect the pilot programs that have been authorized under both
MAT 21 and the Fast Act to encourage transit planning that
connect housing, jobs, and mixed use developments with major
transportation projects, specifically the $10 million that was
provided for a competitive pilot program to be stood up and to
be available for communities to apply for?
Secretary Chao. I don't know too much about the timetable.
Mrs. Torres. OK.
Secretary Chao. So I will look into that for you. Clearly I
understand your concern.
Mrs. Torres. Right.
Secretary Chao. And also it is very common sensical. You
need to have transit to be able to supply communities with the
resources with which to get jobs, go to school, send their kids
to school.
Mrs. Torres. Right. Right. A railroad, although that grant
was for the Alameda corridor, railroad is important in the
district. But we have had many, many, many cases of death as a
result of people not adhering to signs or the lack of signs,
and railroad safety is a huge problem in the district. So I
think I am going to stay here and come back for my other
questions, but I hope that you will stay focused on that.
Secretary Chao. Thank you. I will.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And nice to be with you
Secretary Chao. Thank you for coming.
I want to quickly echo Chairman Lowey's concerns about the
capital investment grants, and note that I am also glad to see
the funding for the program in your request.
Yesterday I had meetings with Governor Baker's staff, and I
know he shared in the recent meeting with you, that MASS DOT is
going to be applying for core capacity grants for green line
transformation. And we are very much hoping to engage in that
process with you and your staff.
Here are some not so fun facts. Boston is ranked eighth
most vulnerable to floods among the world's coastal city.
Boston's low income neighborhoods, where public housing
projects were built on landfill, are particularly vulnerable to
flooding. And this is not just Boston, but neighborhoods and
communities in my district as well.
Entire neighborhoods in my district could be under water,
including Logan Airport. And we know that super storms have
tremendous flooding, can be subject to tremendous flooding and
significant damage to our infrastructure.
This committee provided a million dollars in fiscal year 20
appropriations for the department to work with transportation
research board on effective ways to measure the resilience of
the transportation systems. This is an area we take very
seriously, and we hope that you do as well.
Can you share how you have used that million dollars and
how you have tied Federal transportation funding to resiliency
efforts?
Secretary Chao. In our current budget we actually have, let
me correct that. In our surface reauthorization, which is
undergoing Agency clearance right now within the Executive
Branch, we actually include provisions for resiliency and
infrastructure. So that is the first time that it has ever been
included, and I think that's a very positive development.
On the $1 million grant, I'm sorry, I do not have that
handy, and I will certainly look into it for you.
Ms. Clark. OK. Are there any other areas you can point to
where you are working to build resiliency and leveraging your
grant programs?
Secretary Chao. I am sure there are a lot. I was briefed on
this, and I just cannot remember.
Ms. Clark. All right. Well I am sure you will get back to
me.
Secretary Chao. If I can, thank you.
Ms. Clark. Moving on to natural infrastructure. Nature
based solutions is a great way to help us build resilience,
whether that is reefs, beaches, use of vegetation. And when
they are used alongside great infrastructure such as roads and
bridges, they're very much a cost-effective and sustainable
solution. I am pleased to see that you released guidance on
nature based solutions for coastal highways back in August. And
how can we support you in the amplification and promotion of
these solutions? And how is Federal highways incorporating them
into its own projects?
Secretary Chao. I will be pleased to answer that. I
actually found the answer to your $1 million. It was in the
fiscal year 2020 appropriations bill.
Ms. Clark. Right.
Secretary Chao. And so it was directed for the
transportation research board, as you mentioned. And actually
that effort is currently in development, and the funds are
being transmitted to TRB for their use.
We also have a resiliency work group, working group, to
answer your other parts of the question, established to kind of
collaborate across all modes, because that was always an issue.
Each mode kind of dipped their thing in their own silos, but
obviously this issue requires the overall cooperation and
collaboration of all the modes, an intermodal basis.
And then the University Transpiration's Grant Program, we
have got 37 designated centers involving over 150 colleges and
universities in excess of $70 million annually to carry out
research on resiliency. And then, as I mentioned, the surface
transportation reauthorization proposal will include resiliency
language for the first time.
And your question was, if you can just repeat the second
part.
Ms. Clark. Well, you gave a partial answer, and I have 30
seconds left.
I just want to return to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy.
Every year we talk about this with sexual assault.
Unfortunately, 2 most recent surveys shows 70 percent of sexual
contact occurs on the grounds of USMMA at Kings Point, New
York. There is a request to have concurrent criminal
jurisdiction with New York State. Can you tell me the status of
that?
Secretary Chao. We are very concerned about that as well.
We are glad that you brought it up. Kings Point is now working
with the Nassau County District Attorney and also the Nassau
County Police Commissioner in reaching out to discuss what are
their responsibilities and extending existing co-current
Federal/State jurisdiction, which is what you were talking
about. So that effort has been initiated and it is ongoing.
Ms. Clark. Do you have any timetable for completion?
Secretary Chao. That is a good question. We will look into
that.
Ms. Clark. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Madam Secretary, I want to return to
the question of your oversight role with respect to FAA
decisions which you referenced, for obvious reasons, in your
opening statement.
I realize the relationship because FAA predates the
department, there are some unique features here. But
nonetheless, you clearly are the head of the department within
which FAA is housed.
Could the department challenge the FAA to integrate the
work of aircraft certification and flight standards? Could the
department require the FAA to justify its use of Organization
Designation Authorization, ODA? What actions has the department
taken to foster a safety first culture at the FAA?
And specifically, when the FAA makes the decision to return
the MAX to service, what questions do you intend to ask of the
FAA? I realize those are very broad questions, I hope they give
you a chance though to elaborate the approach you are taking
and plan to take on this matter.
Secretary Chao. First of all there is no timeline for
returning the Boeing MAX, 737 MAX to service. Our number one
priority is safety, and the FAA has the statutory
responsibility to ensure that its review of the airplane is to
its satisfaction before any action is taken on this.
My responsibility is to ensure that the FAA process is one
that is free from outside influences, that they are paying
attention, which they are. To this the FAA is responsible for,
you know, issuing the air worthiness directives, for example,
that will be used to address the safety concerns that led to
the grounding of the MAX.
The FAA is also the agency responsible for rescinding the
grounding order, determining minimum training requirements and
working with the international community.
I fully expect the FAA to conduct a thorough review of the
MAX aircraft prior to its un-grounding. And this will include
examining the recommendations from the various task forces and
review boards which have been studying this issue. And then as
Secretary of Transportation I reserve the right to require that
the FAA take any additional safety action that is needed.
Mr. Price. Thank you, that is helpful. We will of course
monitor this very, very carefully, and want to work with you to
make certain these decisions are responsible, that they are
adequately justified, and that when it comes to the FAA's
needs, oversight needs, enforcement needs, that the budget
fully reflects that.
Let me quickly turn to the question of budget execution.
For the past 3 years, in partnership with my friend Mr. Diaz-
Balart, we have appropriated nearly $16 billion above
authorized levels for highway, transit, rail, aviation, and
maritime infrastructure programs. As you well know, a
significant portion of these resources are provided through
competitive grants to help communities address their
challenges.
In fiscal 2019, the committee provided $670 million for
four passenger rail and other road improvement grant programs,
including CRISI, and the Federal State Partnership for the
State of Good Repair Programs. Because the department and FRA
have been unable to award these grants in a timely manner, the
Fiscal 2020 Bill directed you to make these awards by May 1,
2020. So my first question is are you on track to meet that
deadline?
Secretary Chao. I sure hope so. We certainly are very much
aware of that.
Mr. Price. All right. Well we hope so too. I will take that
to be an affirmative answer.
It is imperative that you complete work, of course, on the
2019 awards, because we have to move forward with the 2020
awards.
Secretary Chao. Right.
Mr. Price. Here we are talking about $2 billion the
committee provided in the 2020 bill for 10 competitive grant
programs, including CRISI and the State of Good Repair
Programs.
I appreciate that the DOT has initiated the six grant
cycles, you know, over these 10 programs. But I am concerned
with the pattern of FRA grant programs lagging behind. So my
question here has to do with the way these rail investments are
going to be expedited.
What does the department and the FRA need in order to
improve the grant process? Do you need more, does FRA in
particular, do they need more resources, do they need more
staff, do they need more prodding and oversight? I mean what is
your assessment? We are hopeful that we will meet this
statutory deadline, but there is a broader problem that we need
to address.
Secretary Chao. There are so many grants now in the
Department of Transportation. I was here 27 years ago. We did
not have so many grant programs. We now have 69 different
programs, grant programs, discretionary. So it has really
required agencies to respond in a way they have not before. FRA
was primarily just a safety organization. Now they are a grant
making organization. So we just got CRISI grants out this week,
the NOFO on that. So we are making a priority to be responsive,
understanding that the committee wants all this out, and we do
too. We make it a top priority to get all these NOFOs out,
Notice of Funding Opportunities, and that is very important
because that sets a perimeter for how applications are to be
submitted. And if we write them badly, then it creates havoc,
uncertainty, confusion, with the grant application community.
And since December of 2019 the department has issued 30 already
out of 48 total possible funding opportunities.
So based on our progress to date, I am pretty confident, I
never want to over promise, that the department's ability to at
least complete this first phase, which is a NOFO, is proceeding
according to schedule. And again, we have a very tight
timeline, and we hold the modes, all the modes, not only FRA,
very tightly to all these Notice of Funding Opportunities.
Mr. Price. Thank you for that expression of determination.
Your perception is absolutely right, that this subcommittee
puts great stock in this. I personally put great stock in the
CRISI program. I have been grateful for what that program has
meant to my home State, I know firsthand. The State of Good
Repair Grants is also critically important. So, yes, the
activities have stepped up, the activities have changed over
time. There needs to be adaptation on the part of FRA and other
agencies to take on this role. And we need to know if what is
at the root of some of these challenges is staffing, is
funding, we need to know that and deal with it sooner rather
than later.
Secretary Chao. I understand.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Before my
question, I want to make 2 points. First is on, I know that
Congressman Torrez, my dear friend, and also I believe it was
Rutherford, mentioned the ports. And I think others did as
well. And I would be remiss because I thanked you, Madam
Secretary, as you need to be thanked, but I also need to thank
the chairman. Because I would just remind folks that that was a
program that started in this subcommittee when I chaired it.
However, it has continued under the leadership of Chairman
Price. So thank you. I think all of us, by the way, owe you
also a debt of gratitude, Mr. Chairman, for that.
Second place, and I think it was Congresswoman Lawrence,
and she mentioned something which I am glad she did because,
you know, she is a very knowledgeable person in this
subcommittee and a great member of this subcommittee, and yet
there have been so many press reports out there that we kind of
read and we assume they are true. And so I want to thank her
for bringing up the issue and the fact that you clarified,
Madam Secretary, some of the facts on some of the things that
we have read.
I mean I just learned now for the first time that Illinois,
12th in population, 3rd in grants, I hope there is not like a
distant relative of somebody who may have worked for somebody
who's a third cousin who once drove by the door of maybe one of
your staffers and, I don't know, it may be Adam, it may be Ann,
because if there is, who happens to be from Illinois, then
you're probably going to get a story saying that you've got
bias towards Illinois because of that distant cousin who is a
relative of somebody who drove by your door or somebody who
knew somebody. And I am glad you had the opportunity, Madam
Secretary, to clarify that because I read that and it has been
highly irresponsible reporting. So thank you.
Secretary Chao. In fact, a senior senator from Kentucky
complained as to why Kentucky was not getting more.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I am not going to go there because I
imagine that you, right, you must have heard that right.
Let me talk a little bit about in your budget request you
highlight a major new large truck crash study to be conducted
jointly between the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. I
understand that the last such study was done nearly 2 decades
ago.
Madam Secretary, what led you to decide to undertake this
new major study? You know, what do you hope to learn how that
might benefit road safety? Just give me some thoughts about
that because that is a very important and a new major
undertaking----
Secretary Chao. Thank you for that question. You are right,
it has been more than 15 years since the original study. And
there have been a lot of changes in technology, vehicle safety,
driver behavior, roadway designs that impact how a driver
performs.
So, this new study will help FMCSA identify factors that
are contributing to the growth in large truck crashes. And on
January 14, 2019, FMCSA published, in fact, a request for
information soliciting public comment about how best to design
and conduct the study. So, thank you for bringing that up.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, and have you had an opportunity yet
to figure out, I mean, if anybody knows yet, you know, how long
that might take and what the cost may be or is that still
premature?
Secretary Chao. We do not really, I do not really know yet
but I will go back and ask that.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, I am just grateful because, you
know, and I can't speak for anybody else but clearly this
subcommittee. But also, the full committee chairwoman is one
who constantly reminds us of the importance of safety. And so,
it is something that I am interested in and if you can stay in
touch with us as you progress and as things move forward on
that. It is something that I think is important. I want to
commend you for bringing that up. I didn't realize until I saw
this recommendation, this thing that you are looking at that it
had been that long since--and you are absolutely right,
technology is totally different than it was, again, you know,
almost 2 decades ago. So, I thank you for that. Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Ms. Lawrence.
Mrs. Lawrence. Yes, thank you again, Madam Secretary for
being here. As you know, the automotive market is beginning to
shift toward electric vehicles. The State of Michigan is home
to several auto makers. And the discussion about, even in my
district, there is a ground breaking announcement that local
communities are going to start building just electric vehicles.
Can you in detail discuss the Department's strategy to
develop a robust EV infrastructure that expands the electric
grid, designate proper charging signage, improve supporting
technologies. And please discuss how you are working with the
Energy Department to ensure that this infrastructure is a
priority.
Secretary Chao. Well, I think it is a matter of consumer
choice. And electric vehicles are currently 1 percent of the
total cars sold. So, this is an issue in which infrastructure
is being talked about. We will have to deal with it and perhaps
a surface reauthorization proposal is the proper place for
that. We discuss this with the auto makers all the time and
other interested stakeholders on this. But it is a huge and
major part of infrastructure development that I think needs
national consensus.
Mrs. Lawrence. And I just wanted to emphasize that we all
have to work together on this. Because we manufacture the cars
and we can't support them. And so, just to make sure that that
is a priority. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the
remaining of my time to my colleague, Ms. Torres.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Ms. Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, so much, Mr. Chairman. And
Secretary Chao I know your time is almost up.
Secretary Chao. Not at all.
Mrs. Torres. I really appreciate you being here. As part of
the FAST Act, the Regional Infrastructure Accelerator
Demonstration Program was authorized to assist entities in
developing their infrastructure priorities and financing
strategies for projects eligible for funding under TIFIA. After
fighting for funding over the last few years, I secured $12
million in the fiscal year 2020 to stand up this program.
Can you tell me what the timeline is for the NOFA to be
issued so that we can take advantage of that? My concern is
that California has passed a gas tax so we have some money
where we could utilize with matching funds if necessary. So,
this is a critically important program for my district.
Secretary Chao. We recently went out with the request for
information to get ideas from stakeholders and I think that was
important. Because we wanted to get information about how the
Regional Infrastructure Accelerator Program can best be
structured so that it is relevant. So, that was done, that is
positive. And now, we are anticipating doing the NOFA probably
this spring. So, that took a lot of time but we had to get that
in place first. So, probably this spring and probably with
award selection announcements later this year.
Mrs. Torres. Is it possible for my office to participate in
that input that you have received or get some information on
that input that you received?
Secretary Chao. Sure.
Mrs. Torres. And then just quickly going back to railroad
trespassing safety. According to the national strategy to
prevent trespassing on railroad property, the Department plans
to conduct trespassing prevention summits. To help develop
mitigation strategies specifically to the local surrounding
communities and issues related to deaths on railroad property.
Can you tell us what the timeline is for those community
meetings or stakeholder meetings that will eventually happen?
Secretary Chao. You may remember that I was Deputy
Secretary of Transportation way back, you know, almost 30 years
ago. And this was highway rail grade crossing safety issues
were a huge issue then. And I was always very concerned about
that. And one of my first priorities coming back as Secretary
is to focus attention on this.
So, we have actually done--we continuously try to get
information out to engage in educational programs to have the
FRA work with railroads, State DOTs, local governments,
individual, you know, communities to focus on this issue. And I
think that has actually reduced fatalities by about 60 percent
but it is still too high.
Mrs. Torres. Right.
Secretary Chao. So, we have about 400 annually. So, we want
to work with you on this. Because obviously for certain
communities, it is a huge issue.
Mrs. Torres. I am going to yield back her time.
Mrs. Lawrence. Just, Madam Secretary, just wanting you to
know that I will be following up on what we can do better in
Michigan. And thank you so much for showing up, it means a lot.
Thank you.
Secretary Chao. Not at all, thank you.
Mr. Price. Thanks. Ms. Watson Coleman.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Well I was just wondering whether or
not the whole issue of positive train control had been
addressed, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Chao. No, it has not.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Because I know that there is a 2020,
December 2020 expectation of completion. But I don't think all
the transit agencies, including the one in New Jersey, are
necessarily poised to complete in that amount of time. I am
wondering what you all are doing to either get them there or
what can we expect in terms of having the time necessary to it
because it is such an important issue. Thank you.
Secretary Chao. Oh, we have been very focused on this. In
fact, we actually have a pretty good report card. The FRA is in
charge of doing this so we want to work with you. If you have
any particular entity that is having problems----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. New Jersey. Well, I don't think that
we have done everything that we are supposed to do in New
Jersey.
Secretary Chao. Right. So, the President's budget requests
$3 million to support FRA's continued monitoring of PTC
operations in fiscal year 2021. And all 41 railroads either met
the December 31, 2018 deadline for fully implementing the PTC
systems or certified that they will implement an FRA certified
interoperable system no later than December 31, 2020.
Upon initiating the commuter rail service in 2019, a 42nd
railroad, TEXRail is no included in all of this. And PTC is in
operation in 92 percent of the 57,855 required route miles. And
only about 25 percent of 236 tenant railroads achieved the PTC
inoperability. So, challenges remain. But this is a very
important focus.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Yeah, so will we achieve the 100
percent, all the 58 some odd miles?
Secretary Chao. It is certainly our goal but there will be
railroads and short lines that will not be able--entities that
will not be able to do so. So, we will----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So, we will be able to--I am sorry, go
ahead.
Secretary Chao. So, the FRA is watching and we are looking
at it very closely.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. And so, the other question, I guess
the concern is that when they are not meeting the deadline, if
we then impose a civil penalty upon them, it takes the sort of
money that could possibly accomplish the intended goal of being
in compliance. So, are we able to waive that as well?
Secretary Chao. Gosh, I don't know. I am going to have to
ask the FRA.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. It seems counterintuitive.
Secretary Chao. Because actually we have assessed, FRA has
assessed nearly $400,000 in civil penalties for schedule
related PTC violations.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Yes, I know. Thank you. I yield back.
Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Mr. Price. Thank you. We appreciate your appearance, your
time here this morning, Madam Secretary. And I know we do have
a hard stop which we have arrived at. I want, on the way out,
to signal a concern of my own regarding truck safety. Maybe you
can give me a quick answer on this and if not, we will await
your answer.
This has to do with truck underrides. And our fiscal 2020
bill did direct the Department to implement the 2019 GAO
recommendations with respect to truck underrides and to
complete a rulemaking to improve rear guards. I wonder if you
have any timeline you can report on this morning as to when you
are going to be able to comply with these requirements. If not,
we will await your answer for the record.
Secretary Chao. Yes, we actually have just talked about
this just yesterday. So, this is a priority. We understand that
we do have a timeline but let me get that over to you.
Mr. Price. All right, all right, very good.
Secretary Chao. May I just add, I couldn't believe--I will
talk with Representative Lawrence personally about this. But,
in fact, Michigan has received other grants. So, I will talk to
her. They have received $533 million in discretionary grants
including info grants. And so, I will talk to her about some of
this.
Mr. Price. Please do that. And that is pertinent to what I
am going to say right now.
Secretary Chao. OK.
Mr. Price. Because if there is more information of that
sort, clarifications, we will welcome that as we compile the
hearing record. The staff will be in contact with your staff
regarding any questions for the record. And if you could return
that information to the committee within 30 days from next
Thursday, we will be able to publish a complete transcript of
today's hearing. So, we would appreciate your cooperation in
that regard. Mr. Diaz-Balart, do you have any final comments?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I
don't. Thank you.
Mr. Price. All right. Well with that, thank you Madam
Secretary and the hearing is adjourned.
Secretary Chao. Thank you so much.
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
----------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT BUDGET REQUEST
WITNESS
HON. BEN CARSON, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Price. The hearing will come to order. Good morning,
everyone. Good morning, Mr. Secretary. We are happy to have you
here.
We are going to examine the President's fiscal year 2021
budget requests for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Pleased to have Dr. Carson, the secretary of the
department here to testify. So welcome back and we will look
forward to what you have to say.
Stable housing is a basic human need and the foundation
upon which people build their lives. Absent a safe, decent,
affordable place to live, it is next to impossible to achieve
good health, positive educational outcomes, or reach ones
economic potential.
That is why we have said on this subcommittee that we need
in this country to appreciate the importance of housing, to
make housing a front burner issue, fully as important as public
education, as healthcare, as the other building blocks of human
dignity.
Across this country, both urban and rural communities are
struggling to address an affordable housing crisis. Many of the
people affected are the most vulnerable among us, seniors,
people with disabilities, low income families with children,
veterans. Meanwhile, only 1 in 4 families eligible for Federal
rental assistance can receive it because of budget shortfalls.
Of course the problem isn't just the quantity of affordable
housing units, it is also about the quality of those units and
preserving what we have.
The threat of carbon monoxide, lead, radon, and other
hazards continue to pose major challenges for landlords,
including cash strapped public housing authorities as well as
HUD's oversight capacity and physical inspection process.
Residents of the Durham Housing Authority in my home State
are only the most recent high profile example of the human cost
of deferred maintenance of public housing stock. We simply must
do better.
In the last three fiscal years under both Republican and
Democratic House majorities and in partnership with my friend,
the former chairman and current ranking member, Mario Diaz-
Balart, we have provided billions in new resources for public
housing, for vouchers, for homelessness programs, and grants to
states, localities, and nonprofits to address housing and
community development needs.
But let us be clear. This subcommittee knows that the unmet
needs in our community our communities are immense. The
challenges facing HUD and its dedicated employees are vast and
absent a major infusion of new resources and policy
interventions, we are not going to be able to effectively
address this national housing crisis.
This brings us to the Department's Fiscal 2021 budget
request which proposes $448 billion in total budget authority,
that is a cut of $8.6 billion or 15 percent compared to the
current enacted funding level. This is woefully inadequate to
the task at hand and honestly, we had hoped for better.
Mr. Secretary, for several years in a row, you, the
administration have proposed to eliminate community development
block grants, the HOME program, the SHOP program, the Public
Housing Capital Funds, and CHOICE neighborhoods. Not cut, but
eliminate.
All of these programs either create new housing or preserve
existing units. The cuts to the Capital Fund are especially
baffling given the acute challenges faced by public housing
communities nationwide.
There has been a fair amount of presidential posturing
about homelessness in California and other states but the
budget proposes a $4 billion reduction to homeless assistance
grants, precisely the opposite of what we might expect given
all the rhetoric.
I also find it troubling that despite a highly touted
initiative to end HIV in America, the budget request would
slash funding from HOPWA, the Housing Opportunities for People
With AIDS, the only program designed to address the housing
needs of low income people living with HIV, AIDS.
Despite the overwhelmingly grim picture painted by this
budget request, there are a handful of bright spots. For the
first time you do include some funding for new construction
under 202, housing for the elderly, 811, housing for people
with disabilities. That is good news and it builds on
investments this subcommittee has prioritized in previous years
to address accusing--acute housing shortfalls for the elderly
and disabled.
The request also seeks increased funding for lead hazard
control grants, radon testing, and lead risk assessments,
carbon monoxide alarms, and a boost for several self-
sufficiency programs.
Unfortunately, these modest investments are more than
offset by the draconian cuts and the unrealistic program
eliminations I mentioned earlier, including funds essential to
reducing that public housing maintenance backlog in the first
place.
As disaster recovery also remains an important area of
focus for this subcommittee. On December--on January 27, the
Department issued the long awaited mitigation notice for CDBG,
DR funding, 145 days after the 90 day statutory deadline. We
will continue to conduct oversight into the Department's action
on disaster recovery.
We also need more information about the new Federal
financial monitor for Puerto Rico. I reiterate that the HUD IG
found no major deficiencies with the island's housing
department that administers these programs. Survivors of
natural disasters need assistance and support, not rhetoric
about how messed up their government is, not politics, not
bureaucracy.
When it comes to policy proposals to the budget, I would
like to once again register my serious concerns with the
Departments so called rent reforms which would essentially
shift HUD program costs onto residents. These proposals have
been consistently rejected on a bipartisan basis, I expect that
will occur again this year, yet the budget includes nonexistent
savings based on the assumed enactment of these work residents
and rent increases.
I am also concerned with HUD's administrative attempts to
roll back fair housing regulations including the affirmatively
further fair housing rule and their proposed disparate impact
rule. These actions represent a fundamental abandonment of our
obligations under the Fair Housing Act.
The Department has withdrawn guidance and is considering
harmful changes to the equal access rule that ensures shelters
and other homeless providers that accept Federal funds will
treat individual with dignity in accordance with their gender
identity. Rolling back these protections would threaten an
already vulnerable population with additional barriers to vital
services.
Finally, I urge the Department to reverse course when it
comes to the cruel and misguided attempts to block assistance
to families with mixed immigration status. By the Department's
own admission, this policy would not save money but it could
result in the potential eviction and displacement of 108,000
people including U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents as
well as the separation of children from their parents.
So the current state of housing in America should force us
to ask tough questions about our national priorities.
Unfortunately this budget proposal would make that affordable
housing crisis even worse. So we need to work on this.
And, Mr. Secretary, we look forward to working with you to
ensure that HUD has the resources necessary to carry out its
crucial mission.
I would now like to recognize my good friend and the
ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Chairman Price, thank you so much for
holding this hearing and for your leadership.
It is always great to welcome you, Mr. Secretary, back to
the committee. I would note that 3 years ago this week, March
2, 2017 is when you were first sown in as Secretary of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development. I know for you it
has probably been dog years, right, but again, it is a
privilege to have you back here today.
So while obviously we can all have our differences in this
town, and there are a lot of differences in this town, and we
can have heated debates about the proper role of the Federal
Government, for example, I think that we should all commend
you, Mr. Secretary, for your exemplary leadership of HUD during
these 3 years. Really kind of turning a department around in a
way that I think is significant and major improved.
We have placed new responsibilities on you, Mr. Secretary,
and your staff and your team to execute nearly $40 billion in
community development block grant disaster recovery funds. This
program continues to help communities recover from the
devastating, whether it is hurricanes or fires.
But I just want to mention in 2017, we had Harvey, Irma,
and Maria as well as again more hurricanes and floods and
wildfires in 2018 and 2019. You have undertaken this task with
a common sense approach while again, never seeking the
limelight. It has never been about you, Mr. Secretary, it has
been about those that, the American people that are struggling
out there.
I especially thank you for your work and I have seen it
first hand, the work that you have done in Florida, in Texas,
in Puerto Rico to help those communities recover and rebuild
and make sure that they are stronger than they were before
those events.
As part of this recovery effort, we have provided $416
billion for a new mitigation program. A new mitigation program.
This program was initiated right here as you know, Mr.
Secretary, in this subcommittee by Chairman Price, by myself,
by Joe and Doug and I know that you are working hard and your
team is working hard to stand up this new program.
Look, if we can together, together if we can get together
and do this right, you know, the human and financial cost of
future events, whether it is hurricanes, wildfires, floods,
will decline sharply. It is something that has been talked
about for such a long time but because of the leadership of
this subcommittee and I am grateful to the chairman, we have
finally got those funds.
And again, we are hoping if done right we know that it
actually can save not only lives but also save taxpayer money.
This effort to make the communities more resilient is not just
our business during the supplemental appropriations, but it is
becoming more and more a part of the base frankly THUD bill. It
is a major priority as I again as I mentioned for the chairman
and I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on
that issue and you, Mr. Secretary, for working to make sure
that our community are more resilient.
I would also note that we entrusted you with major new
housing investments made possible by the recent budget caps
deals. This includes CDBG, home and investments in new elderly
and disabled housing which obviously are a special priority to
the chairman and to myself.
The chairman and I have worked to include housing
investments in our infrastructure initiatives on this
subcommittee and I thank you again for being a partner, Mr.
Secretary, in those efforts.
I am pleased the President's request for fiscal year 2021
includes and builds frankly on some of these investments,
including the lead in healthy homes, elderly and disabled
housing, homeless programs which receive historic, historically
high requests in your budget.
Now there is some reductions again proposed, like the
elimination of community development block grants that the
chairman just mentioned. And I am, you know, I am pretty
certain that I know what the House and this committee will do
with those recommendations.
However, Mr. Secretary, your track records shows and again,
this is not words, it is your track record shows that when we
exercise the power of the purse here in Congress, you prove to
be a trusted partner, executing those programs to the benefit
of our constituents and our communities and you do that and you
do it frankly in a very effective way.
Mr. Secretary, you know, you know what it is like to not be
born with everything going your way. You grew up under
difficult circumstances. You did not grow up with wealth and
yet, you rose to become one of our nation's top neurosurgeons,
a successful business man, and now a government leader. And,
Mr. Secretary, I hope you know that your story is a true
inspiration to the country and I think all of us and those of
us who have gotten to know you.
So however, what stands out for me more than your
achievements is your dedication to serving others. And you have
shown that throughout your life, Mr. Secretary, whether as a
surgeon in the operating room or as a Cabinet secretary working
to expand opportunities for over 6 million citizens who are
directly served by HUD's programs, is your again, your
willingness to serve, to help others, and to do so with
conviction, but with absolute humility. And I think nobody
could argue with what I have just said.
So thank you for your service, Mr. Secretary, I look
forward to your testimony today and as always, I look forward
to continuing to working with you as we go through this process
to serve those folks who truly need help. So thank you and I
yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, we will of course be
happy to print your full statement in the record, whatever or
any attachments you want to include. Ask you now to speak for 5
minutes or so and then we will turn to questions.
Secretary Carson. Great. Chairman Price, Ranking Member
Diaz-Balart, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today and discuss the
President's proposed fiscal year 2021 HUD budget. And also
thank you for the tremendous help that you've been to me over
these last 3 years and for our organization.
This is my fourth time testifying before this subcommittee
to update you on the important work being performed by HUD's
immensely talented and dedicated staff.
Our funding plan for the upcoming fiscal year seeks $47.9
billion, an increase of 8.6 percent over last year's request.
It proposes increased funding to help our fellow citizens who
are homeless.
It calls on Congress to provide a record amount of funding
to make homes safer by reducing lead-based paint and other
hazards like carbon monoxide and radon.
And our budget will continue providing critical resources
to support for more than 4.6 million low income families HUD
serves though our rental assistance programs.
In short, our budget supports HUD's combined efforts to
provide safe, decent, and affordable housing for the American
people, while being good stewards of taxpayer dollars.
In the time I have, I would like to summarize the most
critical aspects of our budget. First, homelessness has been
foremost on our minds for recent--in recent months. HUD's most
recent point in time count found a sharp increase in
homelessness in California.
This is stemming the progress we are seeing across the rest
of the Nation where homelessness was actually down. Our budget
requests $2.8 billion for homeless assistance grants which
allows communities to serve vulnerable individuals and families
who are homeless or at risk of homelessness through a variety
of proven approaches.
And in the coming months, HUD will be targeting unspent
funds to areas of the country experiencing high levels of
unsheltered homelessness.
Our budget includes $425 million for one of my top goals,
reducing home health hazards. In addition to our continued
focus on lead, this request includes $35 million for carbon
monoxide detectors and $5 million for radon testing and
mitigation. Our goal is not simply healthy homes, it is healthy
people living inside healthy homes. Across our rental
assistance programs, HUD has requested $41.3 billion to ensure
all currently served households continue to receive assistance.
Our budget includes $853 million for housing for the
elderly and $252 million for housings for persons with
disabilities. These two programs assist approximately 125,000
elderly residents and 32,000 people with disabilities pay their
rent.
While we are here to talk about our budget requests, I
would like to point out that not every challenge can simply be
resolved with more financial resources.
One of my priorities as Secretary and chairman of President
Trump's White House Council on Eliminating Regulatory Barriers
to Affordable Housing is working with Federal, State, local,
and Tribal partners on eliminating regulatory barriers
unnecessarily increasing the cost of America's housing supply.
Not only do these barriers increase cost for consumers, they
also place a higher burden on taxpayers who shoulder increased
costs.
Turning to FHA, I am pleased to report that the most recent
actuarial report found the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund had a
healthy capital ratio of 4.84 percent, the highest level since
before the financial crisis. FHA's economic net worth stands
north of $62 billion, nearly double from last year.
I want to express to this subcommittee our deep gratitude
for your support for updating FHA's technology. FHA is
digitizing portions of its claim process which reduces
processing time from months to minutes. We are requesting $20
million to continue this modernization initiative to help FHA
properly manage risk and completely digitize the loan life
cycle.
To support HUD's fair housing mission, our budget proposes
$65.3 million to continue fighting housing discrimination and
fund a wide range of services related to equality and fair
housing.
HUD is also addressing fair housing through regulatory
reform and legal cases. We have a new proposed disparate impact
rule designed to provide plaintiffs with a roadmap for pleading
stronger cases and an improved Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing rule, which is aimed at increasing affordable housing
options for families.
HUD also filed a discrimination charge against Facebook and
entered into a landmark agreement requiring Los Angeles to
improve housing accessibility for disabled individuals.
Finally, I want to turn to the increased role HUD has been
performing to help communities recover from natural disasters.
During my tenure, Congress has appropriated more than $40
billion for long-term recovery needs.
As we administered this dramatic increase in funding, we
found the unpredictable nature of the program does not allow
grantees to plan responsibly or act quickly. In fact, we found
it takes 2\1/2\ years for the first dollar to reach disaster
survivors and another 2 years before the community has spent
most of its funding. By beginning a conversation regarding the
inadequacies of the current program, we hope to work with
Congress on reforms that will speed the pace of recovery.
Mr. Chairman, to conclude, our budget advances the
administration's key priorities by providing shelter to the
homeless, making homes safer from health hazards, and
continuing to assist Americans in need with their rent
payments. Our budget does this while recognizing difficult
choices need to be made in order to prevent future generations
from inheriting a mountain of debt.
I am proud of the tireless work being done by HUD's nearly
7,500 employees and are serving every community of this great
Nation every day. I often say we have the ugliest building, but
the best people. Thank you.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Well, let us begin our
questioning and I want to start with the topic of the hour
which is critically important, and that is the work we have
undertaken with the coronavirus, the possible impending
pandemic. It was announced Sunday that you have been appointed
to the Coronavirus Task Force. I expect that appointment has as
much to do with your medical expertise, your career history, as
it does with your present position. But I want to ask you a
couple of questions that perhaps will illuminate the
administration's approach to this and what your role will be.
First of all, what do you--how do you envision your role on
the task force? What is HUD's role in the response effort? In
particular, what is HUD's role in communicating to residents in
HUD assisted housing and the general public on the coronavirus
response?
And then another question I think it is essential to
highlight and that is, your assurance, I hope you can assure us
as a health professional, can you assure us that you and the
task force will be supporting the recommendations of public
health professionals and ensure that our national response and
the public communications about the response are based on the
facts and on sound science?
Secretary Carson. Yes, thank you. It is obviously a serious
situation that impacts our country. And the task force that has
been put together has many extremely capable people that I have
known for decades. And we are considering all possibilities
because viruses can be unpredictable.
And we meet every day and, you know, we all ask, including
myself, very pertinent questions and seek the advice of all the
other members as well as people who are outside of the
committee. We have access to a lot of information.
And, you know, as far as the housing of the people that we
serve is concerned, we have sent out information to all of the
PHA's around the country, thousands of them, regarding best
practices for keeping people safe. And we will continue to do
that and update that on a regular basis.
Mr. Price. Can you say something about messaging and on the
kind of reliance you anticipate on the best expertise you can
muster?
Secretary Carson. Yeah. Well, you know, this is a virus and
it is transmitted in a way that viruses are, particularly
respiratory viruses, which means that we have to exercise the
same kind of precautions that we would for something like a flu
epidemic. The consequences of this can be more severe than the
flu, but the same kind of precautions are important. And people
can still go about their normal lives.
This is not going to impact most people. And even if people
were affected, 80 percent or more of them would not have any
significant consequences from this. It is mostly the elderly
and people who have underlying conditions that are most at
risk.
And we are working with medical experts to come up with
treatments that will help to ameliorate a lot of the symptoms.
Because when you are dealing with a viral illness like this,
you don't necessarily have something that kills the virus right
away, but you can impact the symptoms and improve the condition
of the patient. And also, we are working on a vaccine at record
speed. And all that looks very promising.
Mr. Price. Well, thank you. I would expect that you
personally and others on the task force will be involved in
conveying a message that, in some respects, puts things in
perspective, provides some larger view of what we are dealing
with, but also doesn't sugarcoat or minimize the dangers, the
possible worse-case scenarios.
Secretary Carson. Absolutely.
Mr. Price. That is truthful and balanced in that respect.
Secretary Carson. And that is something that we talk about
on a daily basis. We want to make sure that it is absolutely
transparent, it is not sugar-coated, it is not used in any way
as a political tool.
Mr. Price. Thank you for that answer. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I
want to talk a little bit about lead in healthy homes. I would
like to commend you first for your focus, the focus that you
have placed on ensuring that Americans are living in healthy
homes. I assume that your background as a neurosurgeon informs
this interest. I know you are uniquely aware of the link
between, frankly, health and a good positive social outcome.
You have more than tripled the budget for these programs in
your recommendation. But also, you have done so in your tenure,
and from just $110 million when you first arrived at HUD to
$360 million in next year's budget request. This happens to be
an area where the full committee chairwoman has been a leader
in for many, many years.
There are several recent news reports on the hazards
tenants face in public multifamily project-based housing. These
hazards include carbon monoxide, lead, and radon and gas,
radon. So, what is new about this year's budget proposal
regarding healthy homes that might be different from previous
years, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Carson. Thank you. This has obviously been an
area of tremendous interest to me having served in Baltimore
for 36 years in the medical profession, and particularly in
East Baltimore, there are a lot of children who are impacted by
lead. And what you discover very quickly is that the
deleterious effects are long term and are extraordinarily
expensive. And that is why it is so important to deal with it
before those consequences become a reality.
This year's budget contains dedicated funding for carbon
monoxide detectors for the first time, dedicated funding for
radon detection and mitigation for the first time. And
obviously, there is a very intense interest in providing a
healthy environment, particularly for children who are growing
up, but also for elderly people.
When we talk about our Healthy Homes Initiative, we are
also talking about providing the appropriate type of access for
elderly and disabled people. We are talking about putting in
appropriate types of railing in homes for elderly people
because falls and the results of falls cost us tens of billions
of dollars each year. And some of that are things that can be
avoided.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Oh, it was on, but I just have to be
louder. I was pleased to see that you signed the grant
agreement with Puerto Rico. Again, $8.2 billion for their
continued recovery after Maria. And you appointed a former HUD
general counsel to serve as the Federal financial monitor for
Puerto Rico. Mr. Couch has been in place for over a month now.
And obviously, we have had conversations about Vivienda and
Puerto Rico. And so, can you update us on the steps that Mr.
Couch has taken in his new oversight role to not only help
Vivienda succeed, which is crucially important, while obviously
also making sure that we are a good steward for the taxpayer
money?
Secretary Carson. Yes. First of all, Robert Couch is an
extremely talented individual. Served as the general counsel
for HUD in the past, also has been the president of Ginnie Mae
and advisor in financial governmental relationships for
multiple institutions. He has been there for a little more than
a month now, has established very excellent working
relationships with the governor there as well as with Vivienda.
And instead of what some people have said which is another
layer of bureaucracy, what he really does is act as a point
person. And that actually facilitates things, allows things to
get done much faster. You know, he obviously is looking over
the procurement procedures which, in the past, have been
different than what we generally expect, let us just put it
that way, and making sure that things are done according to the
action plan in real time. So, that we don't wind up a year
later saying, well, why didn't you do this and why didn't you
do that, why didn't it get done?
We have also, you know, put the money in there. They have
had access to a lot of money, $1.5 billion for more than a
year. Recently another tranche of $1.7 billion has been made
available to them. So, there has never been a time when they
needed money and it hasn't been available.
But we have to be absolutely sure on the basis of the
history of that place that we do not voluntarily put money in
jeopardy. And that is why we put the financial controls in,
that is why we have the Federal monitor, and that is why we
have put unprecedented measures in place. And I suspect if we
hadn't done that, there would come a time when the committee
would ask us to come here and explain why we put all that money
into a place without making sure that it was going to be
appropriately spent for the benefit of the people.
Mr. Price. Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for being with us, Secretary Carson. I first want to address
the $50 million in homeless assistance grants for domestic
violence survivors. And tell you a few short stories about the
critical support that it has meant to survivors not only in my
district and State, but across the country.
One of the survivors we have heard from was literally
living on the streets, sleeping in woods, under bridges because
she just couldn't get the money together to secure housing.
With the domestic violence set-aside, it gave her that rental
assistance to reclaim her life and pave a new future.
We also heard from a young mom with two children. This mom
and her 3-year-old actually ended up in the ICU from abuse. And
after sleeping in her car while 5 months pregnant with her
other small children, she was connected through the set-aside
to counseling, housing services, found a full-time job and was
just approved for an apartment last week.
And finally, we had an older survivor who had survived 20
years of physical abuse. She fled her relationship with two
dogs. The dogs made it very hard to find an appropriate place
to go. Also ended up sleeping in her car. The DV set aside
helped her get into her apartment. Yet in your budget, you have
eliminated this vital lifeline. I wonder if you could tell me
how you came to this priority?
Secretary Carson. Well, in the continuum of care package,
we were able to create 2,800 more units for people who are
victims of domestic violence. So, you know, there are different
ways to be able to do this. We are extremely concerned about
that statistic and will in no way shrink away from the
responsibility of taking care of abused individuals.
Ms. Clark. Well, in a related topic, and I think we both
know that 75 percent of the need is still unmet with this
particular population, there are also requirements for HUD to
comply with VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act. And it
requires you to clarify two housing providers. Their
responsibilities under VAWA to establish policies and
procedures for victims requesting an emergency transfer as well
as really important recordkeeping requirements.
Given that you have cut this other program, you are trying
to make do with the other resources you just mentioned. I think
it is really important that HUD comply with those requirements.
In January, our staff asked you, asked the Department for
an overview. We are still awaiting a response. Are you familiar
with these responsibilities and can you tell me how HUD is
fulfilling them?
Secretary Carson. I am familiar with those responsibilities
and I know that our staff is also very concerned about that
issue. I will inquire as to why they haven't responded to you
yet.
Ms. Clark. That would be great. And I would really
appreciate a response in writing on how that is being complied
with and make sure that we continue the care that is needed. I
appreciate the shout-out for your staff. We all do better when
our staff is doing better.
But I am concerned that in the employee viewpoint survey
morale in your Fair Housing Office, which has lost 10 percent
of its staff, 35 percent have responded that they are
anticipating leaving HUD next year. That is a startling number.
And I think that some of it may come from recent policies that
especially affect Fair Housing, whether that is the proposed
rule to reverse shelter access for transgender individuals,
your personal disparaging comments about transgender people,
and their quest to search for housing do not help. How do you
plan to boost morale, retain and recruit staff, especially who
are there to combat injustice, and can you continue to issue
discriminatory policies and offensive comments, and expect to
be able to have the staff you need to complete your vital
mission?
Secretary Carson. Well, I am not sure that I agree with the
premise of your question. I do not disparage anyone. I think
everyone gets equal rights. No one gets extra rights, and
somebody--sometimes people interpret that as being against
someone, number one.
Number 2, this year, we have a positive balance in terms of
people coming into HUD versus leaving HUD for the first time in
10 years, and that will continue to be the case. You know,
people are free to come and go as they wish, but we try to
engage everybody in these policies, you know, not just the
politicals, but the career people, as well, and try to get
people engaged in conversations about what we are trying to do.
Ms. Clark. My time has expired, but I would just leave it
with this, that when you state that big, hairy men, referring
to transgender women trying to enter women's shelters----
Secretary Carson. That is not what I was referring to.
Ms. Clark. Well, that is----
Secretary Carson. And I made that very clear to the media
people like to repeat it, but it is not true.
Ms. Clark. All right. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Mr. Rutherford?
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
thank you for all your service, and thank you for being here
this morning. Recently, organizations within my district that
provide housing to the homeless have faced problems with the
Continuum of Care grant under the HUD after they made their
Tier 1 announcements for funding, and these programs have made
no changes in their operations, none whatsoever, and yet, for
some reason, they have fallen off that list. And we, actually,
I think increased, what, 6.7 percent to $2.8 million, the
funding for these homeless programs, and I have been told that
this cannot be. And so, we are trying to find out why and I
have been told that this cannot be remedied until the Tier 2
announcements come out, which these organizations have really--
I mean, this is essential funding for them and, without that,
what is going to happen is a lot of the folks in these programs
are going to wind up homeless, on the street, cycling back
through our jails, and, you know, in a horrible situation. In
fact, one of these programs of whom--that is--it goes all the
way back to 2006, and they have been receiving those funds for
14 years. In fact, they are the only Envision Center in the
State of Florida.
A couple questions. Are there differences in today's
standards for the qualifications versus last year or previous
years? Did something change in the qualifications? They cannot
even find out why they fell off.
Secretary Carson. Right. Yes, I can tell you the answer to
that. I, personally, have wanted to change the criteria, so
that we look not at some type of philosophy, such as they have
to comply with Housing First, but rather what kind of results
have they gotten? How successful have they been? My hand has
been slapped by Congress, saying, no, you cannot do that. You
have to abide by the 2018 rules, which place Housing First at a
premium. I am still trying to change that because everything we
do should be based on evidence, not on ideology. That is how we
get into cycles like this and problems like this. It makes
absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Mr. Rutherford. Yep. Look, I would agree if you made an
assessment to change the standards and rules, but, so, I guess
my question is was anybody put on notice that these changes
were going to take place? Because this was really a surprise to
many when they did not come out on that Tier 1 list.
Secretary Carson. Well, we are looking at ways that we can
work around the system, but, in the meantime, we could use a
lot of help from Congress in doing things that actually make
sense. And it makes much more sense when dispersing these
grants to do it on the basis of what kind of results people are
getting rather than on the philosophy that governs that
organization.
Mr. Rutherford. Well, I agree with you on that. The
outcomes are what matter.
Secretary Carson. Absolutely.
Mr. Rutherford. If funding for the organizations that were
omitted on Tier 1 are not included in the second round of
announcements, are they going to be informed of what these
changes might be or----
Secretary Carson. Well, we are still working to ameliorate
that situation.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you. And do we know when the Tier 2s
are coming out?
Secretary Carson. I don't know, specifically, no.
Mr. Rutherford. Oh, OK.
Secretary Carson. We can find out for you, though.
Mr. Rutherford. OK. Is there a process to notify folks when
they are not going to be on these things or is it just when the
list comes out, you just see that there is no--there is no
explanation that goes with that?
Secretary Carson. I am not aware of a process to notify
them.
Mr. Rutherford. To do that?
Secretary Carson. No.
Mr. Rutherford. Oh, OK. Let me switch over to FHA for just
a moment, if I could, very quickly. The volume of manufactured
home loans being supported by FHA continues to go down, with
the Title I being almost nonexistent now. The industry, MHI,
has provided your team with a long list of suggestions on how
to improve the program, so that FHA can be used by consumers
seeking to purchase a manufactured home. Where are the updates
to the FHA's financing program for manufactured homes, housing
on HUD's overall priority list? And is there anything being
done to kind of update that and get it out?
Secretary Carson. Yes. That is a high priority, and we have
adopted many of those recommendations from the Manufacturing
Housing Institution, and we have communicated that to them.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Price. I want you to get the specific answer you want,
so, please.
Mr. Rutherford. Well, I just wanted to follow up. So, they
have already been notified now, you are saying?
Secretary Carson. Yes.
Mr. Rutherford. And those changes have been made?
Secretary Carson. We have adopted many of the suggestions
that they have made, absolutely, and that is very high priority
because you are talking manufactured housing. You are talking
10 percent of the population of this country.
Mr. Rutherford. Especially in Florida.
Secretary Carson. Absolutely.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Price. Ms. Watson Coleman?
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Good morning, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Carson. Hi.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. We know that today's segregated
communities are the result of discrimination against minorities
throughout the country's history, and simply combating present
day intentional discrimination will not undo that segregation
any time soon. Last year, I asked you about the Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing after you surprisingly suspended the
2015 rule process. At the time that HUD withdrew the assessment
tool, that localities were using to analyze fair housing issues
and set out fair housing goals, and it was stated that your
agency's intent was to revise the assessment tool and to
restart the process. However, HUD has now drastically revised
the regulation, including by revising the definition of the
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule so that it no longer
includes both desegregation and community investments.
Currently, the rule only focuses on housing availability.
Can you tell me why HUD changed its reasoning and why it
is--what is the reason for revising the entire regulation
rather than the assessment tool, as originally suggested? And
what is the reason for changing the regulatory definition?
Secretary Carson. Yes. We were, in fact, concerned about
segregation and unfairness in housing. So, we looked back over
the history and we looked at the tools that had been used to
address it and looked at how effective and efficient they were.
That current rule that you talked about was completely
ineffective and just created a lot of bureaucracy, and we said
what is really creating the segregation? Are there George
Wallace-type people standing in doorways saying you cannot come
in here? No. What is happening is that people are segregated
because they can only afford to live in certain places. They
only have availability in certain places.
So, we said let us address that issue and let us use the
tool because, you know, there were many who suggested we just
get rid of AFFH altogether, but I believe in the concept of
Affirmably Furthering Fair Housing. I just want it to be
effective. So, therefore, we said let us use it to remove the
barriers to creating affordable housing and putting housing in
different places and giving people choice.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. That is a good point there
because that is about--it is about, A, disbursement of poverty;
and, B, providing of housing, affordable housing, in other
places, but the rule does not provide a definition of
affordable housing. That is number one.
And, number two, what is it that you are doing then that
advances these opportunities for housing outside of
concentrated poverty areas or traditional areas? Where is the
affirmative action that is taking place to counteract the
generational housing discrimination that has taken place?
Secretary Carson. By giving the various jurisdictions the
ability to identify three things in their area----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. What jurisdictions are you talking
about?
Secretary Carson. Every jurisdiction.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. What, specifically, are you talking
about when you say ``jurisdiction?''
Secretary Carson. Every city, every place that----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. You are talking about local
municipalities that have been under fair housing discrimination
complaints?
Secretary Carson. Yes. The very places that you are talking
about.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So, you are giving them the tools to
decide to do right when they are in court, most of the time,
because they have not done right? I am a little confused on
that, sir, but I need you to answer that pretty quickly because
I have got a question that is very local-focused that if I do
not get in, I cannot go home.
Secretary Carson. Go ahead. Instead of a top down
government tells you you have to do this according to this set
of rules, which is going to be different in every single
community.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. You are going to go bottom up.
I am going to tell you what I told Betsy DeVos about
education. The reason that the Federal Government got involved
in fair housing and in education was because it was not
happening on the local levels, and we needed to ensure that
there was accountability and equity of opportunity, and that is
what you should be doing.
I want to ask you about a question about Princeton, New
Jersey's Public Housing Authority because that is in my
district. Last October, payments to Princeton were 10 months
late. Currently, in March, one property has an 8-month delay in
payments from HUD and another has a 4-month delay. And it seems
like one of the underlying issues in this is inconsistent
guidance from public housing and multifamily offices. Can you
tell me what you are doing to ensure that public housing
authorities receive timely payments, so that they can continue
to operate? And would you ensure that the Multifamily Division
gets proper training and support to process claims for
reimbursement? Because one of the things that you did do was
send some technical assistants to Princeton, but the technical
assistants that you sent to Princeton, multiple occasions, did
not know how to do what needed to be done, as well. So, I need
to know hen they are going to get their payments, and when are
we going to be able to straighten out the system?
Secretary Carson. That is news to me. We will look into it.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Oh, fine. Thank you. Will, then, will
you get back to us with some writing on that?
Secretary Carson. I would be happy to.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. OK, in rather short order because we
do have a 4-month delay and a 8-month delay.
Secretary Carson. I am always anxious to hear about things
that are not going well. Thank you for that.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. Thank you. I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary. Mr. Secretary, the President has talked a great deal
about the growing number of people in California who do not
have access to housing, but, after all that talk, the new
budget does not include new funding to address homelessness,
and, in fact, cuts the Emergency Solutions grants by $10
million and provides nothing for a program to address the
specific needs, as Katherine Clark mentioned, for domestic
violence survivors. On top of that, we have already talked
about the fact that your budget eliminates programs to increase
affordable housing stock. So, how do you envision solving
homelessness with these kinds of reductions and eliminations?
Secretary Carson. Well, first of all, I would say that the
President's budget on homelessness requests $2.8 billion, which
is an advance on last year's enacted budget. So, I am not sure
it is accurate to say that we are trying to decrease the
homelessness grants.
Mr. Aguilar. Well, the chairman mentioned it in his opening
comments, and we can give you a list of some of the specific
reductions.
Secretary Carson. But the numbers are there, though.
Mr. Aguilar. The budget justification that HUD gave
references a new initiative to address unsheltered
homelessness, but it did not have any details. Last year, this
committee included a provision in the bill that redirects
unused recaptured funds for homelessness, homeless assistance
grants, back into the program to ensure that those dollars can
be used for the purpose that we all intended. You may not agree
with some of our intent. You may call it bureaucracy, as you
have mentioned, but that is the legislative intent and that is
the focus of why we are directing these dollars and that is our
constitutional obligation. Do you plan to use those funds for
this new initiative? When can we expect to see a proposal in
more detail on that?
Secretary Carson. You will notice, in my opening statement,
that I did include that, the recaptured funds. And, yes, we
would, obviously, like to use them for the unsheltered
homelessness, that--which is the greatest need.
Mr. Aguilar. I think we would like to see a lot more detail
than just what was in your written comments. That is fine, if
that is your answer. I think that we can and should be doing a
lot more.
Secretary Carson. That process is in the--as we speak, is
being worked out, how to best recapture and reallocate those
funds.
Mr. Aguilar. OK, and I know--I would hope that you do it
for the intent of the program. I was a little shocked to hear
in your response to Sheriff Rutherford that you want to work
around the system. You know, when we give legislative intent,
when we give allocations of funding, and then we describe how
it should be spent, we are not always asking, you know, for you
to work around the system, to--now, you are free to suggest
ideas, you are free to work through the administration, through
the Chairman, obviously, on new initiatives and new programs.
That is your right. That is your obligation, but it just--it
shocks me a little when I hear you say that you want to work
around the system.
Secretary Carson. It is because I feel an obligation to
take care of the many people who would be left homeless when we
neglect to be able to take care of the programs that are taking
care of them. That is why.
Mr. Aguilar. And you do not feel we share that same
obligation to protect our communities and to take care of
folks?
Secretary Carson. Well, obviously, some people do not
because they have tried to handcuff us and say you can only
take care of people who abide by a certain philosophy.
Mr. Aguilar. No, well, that is just not--that is just not
true.
Secretary Carson. But it is true.
Mr. Aguilar. I think that is a gross oversimplification of
the legislative intent, which, by the way--
Secretary Carson. Well, maybe you will be willing to work
with us on how to do that.
Mr. Aguilar. And, Mr. Secretary, you and I have sat down
for dinner. We sat down with Congresswoman Torres. You know, we
have talked about, you know, some of these issues before in the
past. I appreciate having an opportunity, but I think that we
are doing a disservice, and it just----
Secretary Carson. Well, let us work on it.
Mr. Aguilar. And it grossly oversimplifies the
conversation. If you want to have policy conversations, like we
did over dinner, and work on some things, you know, that is
fine.
Secretary Carson. I would love to.
Mr. Aguilar. But I think when, in a bicameral, bipartisan
way, we give guidance on policy, I think it should be followed.
I think the American public feels it should be followed.
Secretary Carson. Well, when I say work around it, I mean,
ways that we can follow it and still take care of the people
who need to be taken care of.
Mr. Aguilar. Sure. We are happy to work with you on ideas
and initiatives in the future. Again, I just hope that--and it
is something that we have not just seen in this agency, but,
obviously, throughout the administration, what folks might
think is working around the system, whether it is diverting
money to something that was not congressionally designated
gross changes to transfer in reprogramming authority. Those are
things that we are trying to work through, and I think that we
owe it to the taxpayers and the public, in order to get that
right. So, I appreciate it. Thank--
Secretary Carson. I think you would agree that the people
that the congressmen were talking about should be taken care
of, as well.
Mr. Aguilar. I agree and when we have bipartisan, bicameral
language, I believe that the agency should follow it, too.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Ms. Lawrence.
Ms. Lawrence. Thank you. Thank you. It is good to talk to a
fellow Detroiter. How are you today?
Secretary Carson. Doing well, thanks.
Ms. Lawrence. Mr. Secretary, over the years, the Home
Program has done so well that, actually, in your budget and
brief you tout the success of it. You named a woman named Jenny
in Colorado, who received down payment assistance through the
program, so she can fight homelessness that she had
experienced, and that she could be transformational. But
despite this success, you eliminated the Home Program in that
same budget request. How do you justify that?
Because since 1992 the HOME Program have invested over $34
billion to bill and preserve more than 1.6 million affordable
homes. That seems like a great accomplishment which you should
be highlighting, and one that I support.
On a local level, Detroit, our hometown, would lose 7.3
million in affordable housing assistance if this program is
eliminated. Could you, please, help me to understand how
eliminating this program would fulfill the President's pledge
to strengthen growth and increase the supply of affordable
housing.
Secretary Carson. OK. Well, first of all, I don't think it
is a bad program, I think it is a good program. I think the
intentions of CDBG are good. Those are good programs. The
question is, who should fund them, and can they be better
funded and taken care of at the local level, as opposed to the
Federal level, when the Federal Government are ready has a $23-
trillion national debt and growing?
If we don't at some point begin to recognize that, we are
going to hand to the next generation an untenable situation. So
it is not that we think they are bad. And I will tell you that
we are working on revising the CDBG Program.
Ms. Lawrence. I am troubled to figure out why you eliminate
something that is working. As a former Mayor, I know that those
dollars, after we sweep the streets, pay the police and fire,
keep the lights on, do all the things that we need to do, that
money was extremely critical, it was like a lifeline. Not only
in just my community, but in America, across the country.
I also want to talk about the EnVision Center. In 2017 in
our hometown of Detroit, you announced the initiative. In 2018
HUD broke ground for the first EnVision Center in our local. It
is my understanding that these new centers are meant to connect
HUD assistant families with tools, but quite frankly, I took a
tour, and I was a little surprised of what the EnVision Center
was. It was an empty room with no kiosk, with no pamphlets, or
anything, it was just an empty room.
In detail, can you please discuss how the administration is
using or prioritizing the EnVision Center? Are they adequately
staffed, funded, and are they promoting the services to local
communities?
Secretary Carson. OK. Good question. And thank you for
visiting the EnVision Center. You know, there are multiple
EnVision Centers that have popped up over the last year. Some
of them are doing extremely well, vastly populated with all
kinds of things, and some of them are more sparse, like the
ones that you visited in Detroit.
It is in the process of getting more organizations in it,
in fact just last week SBA joined there with some programs. And
if you would like to see an EnVision Center that is functioning
at high level, we can make that available to you. And it will
be a good thing because when you see one that is functioning at
a very high level, I think you would be inspired to go back to
the Detroit one at Durfee and help make it even better.
Ms. Lawrence. Is it your intent that local government will
make it better?
Secretary Carson. Yeah, it is a local process. You know,
basically, these things that exist already, and have existed
for a long time, what the EnVision Center does, is brings it
together in a place where it is accessible to the people who
actually need it. And it adds to that some of the government
agency--
Ms. Lawrence. How much money is being allocated to the
EnVision Centers?
Secretary Carson. I don't think any money is being
allocated to, it is done locally, and it is owned locally. We
just help facilitate it.
Ms. Lawrence. I yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Mr. Hurd?
Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Chairman. Secretary Carson, it is good
to see you again. And I have got to start off by saying thanks
for coming to my hometown in San Antonio. I was stuck up here,
but you are always welcome in the Alamo City to El Paso.
Secretary Carson. Thank you.
Mr. Hurd. And I think the visit went really well. And
speaking of El Paso, I recently met with some of the Native
American Tribes in my district, the Tiguas in El Paso, and
during the conversation they brought up the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determined Nation Act and, you
know, this authorizes and administers Indian housing programs
within HUD.
This hasn't been reauthorized since 2013, right? This is
responsibility of this body, and I would welcome your thoughts
on this program, and is this something that you think Congress
should reauthorize?
Secretary Carson. I think of that as a tremendous program.
I first heard about it 3 years ago, when I entered this, and I
was wondering why it was being re-upped at that. We would very
much support the effort, and willing to work with you in
fashioning whatever legislation is necessary, because it has
provided a lot of flexibilities for the tribes, and tremendous
progress.
Mr. Hurd. Just to be clear. You are for it?
Secretary Carson. Absolutely.
Mr. Hurd. All right. Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to
working with you on this as well too. It is a program that not
only helps the tribes in my district, but across the country,
and I appreciate your support. Something, Mr. Secretary, I know
you believe in stable housing as a prerequisite for economic
mobility, and we know student achievement is maximized when
people go to a good, stable home.
You know, younger, low-income children and families that
use housing vouchers in neighborhoods with better opportunities
earn more in their lifetime, and the housing choices we make
today are going to have generational impacts.
With that in mind, I am curious to the administration's
position on eliminating housing programs like HOME, and CDBG,
in cutting the housing choice voucher program and whether that
is a wise decision.
Secretary Carson. Well, first of all, the Housing Choice
Vouchers are not being cut. What you are probably looking at is
last year's enacted amount which was $23 billion 824, and then
you look at this year's and it said $18 billion 833.
What you need to know is that $5.185 billion has shifted to
the Moving to Work tranche. So, when you add those two
together, just taking care of the same number of people, that a
much greater emphasis on self-sufficiency type programs. When
you add those two together, it is $24 billion and $68 million,
which is actually $194 million more than enacted last year for
the same people.
Mr. Hurd. And that is why we have these hearings. So,
Rental Assistance Demonstration, the RAD Program that
prioritized the redevelopment of public housing properties that
are located in the opportunity zones. And could you expand on
how HUD will work with cities like San Antonio and El Paso, to
advance the construction of new units of affordable housing
inside the opportunity zones.
Secretary Carson. Yes. Yes. Thank you for asking that.
Obviously the opportunity zones themselves, have provided a
tremendous opportunity to develop areas that have been
traditionally neglected. And what we are going is trying to
incentivize some of the construction by providing our senior
administrators to help facilitate the program by reducing the
application fees when they are done in opportunity zones,
multi-family housing, but allowing mixed use facilities to have
certain tax advantages. All of those things will facilitate
affordable housing.
And also recognize that, you know, we elicit from the
people in those zones. There are 35 million Americans that live
in opportunity zones, 2.4 million of them are HUD-assisted
individuals. We elicit information from them about what kinds
of projects would be helpful to them. And people can also go to
OpportunityZone.gov to gain a lot more information about what
is available.
Mr. Hurd. That is helpful, Secretary. And what is your kind
of philosophy on how do we ensure that we don't inadvertently
lead to displacement of low-income residents from these
opportunity zones? That is a question I get asked a lot, and I
am sure it is a topic that you have put your considerable
intellect onto.
Secretary Carson. Absolutely. And it is something that we
pay a great deal of attention to, that is one of the reasons
that our Executive Director of the White House Opportunity and
Revitalization Council, Scott Turner, visit so many places as
the various projects are being carried out, and that will
continue to be the case.
Mr. Hurd. We copy. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Here, at the midstream point, before
we turn to Ms. Torres, I want to just interject a couple of
items that I believe will be helpful in terms of earlier
exchanges. First of all with respect to Mr. Rutherford, and his
indication that his grantee was having trouble with the Fiscal
2019 continuum of care process.
And your answer, Mr. Secretary, was to object to
constraints that have been placed on you.
Those constraints did not apply to that NOFA. The process
Mr. Rutherford is referring to, you were free to write in any
way you wanted. The bill language that you were objecting to,
and we will save that discussion for another day, but the bill
objections that you were objecting to applied to the
requirements that had been in the NOFA for 2018, and then were
applied from 2020 forward.
So, I believe you may want to check and supply information
for the record, and deal with Mr. Rutherford, in terms of that
response. I believe you did have full flexibility in the 2019
process.
Secretary Carson. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Price. And then as regards the confusion about cuts in
the Homeless Assistance Grants budget, your budget
specification shows a $4 million cut from the level this
committee provided in fiscal 2020. So, again, there may be some
confusion here.
I believe what you are doing is comparing your request from
last year's budget request, which indeed is an increase. But
compared to the funds we provided it is a cut. I think that
also will prove to be the case for homelessness.
Secretary Carson. For Homeless Assistance grants?
Mr. Price. That is right.
Secretary Carson. But for homelessness, the entire package
of homelessness, 2.8 is more than what was granted last year.
Last year it was like 2.6-something.
Mr. Price. All right. We probably will need to clear this
up for the record. But the appropriations for 2020 was 2.777,
the 2021 request is 2.773, close, but not an increase.
Secretary Carson. I think I have to go back and look at the
numbers that I have because they are little bit different.
Mr. Price. All right. We will clear it up for the record.
Ms. Torres?
Ms. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Secretary Carson for being with us today, and for visiting the
district. I am going to associate myself with several comments
that the 3 Mayors, Former Mayors have made here, including
myself.
This is the fourth time that you have here before our
Committee, and each time, you know, you have defended budgets
that drastically cut critical housing benefits that help
millions of Americans, Americans in my community and everywhere
in the U.S.
Each and every time Congress has rejected those cuts in a
bipartisan way, each and every time, so it is insanity that we
would continue to push against what Congress has already been
very, very clear about, that we do not support those cuts. For
example, this budget eliminates the Public Housing Capital
Fund. The first new housing resource in decades, exclusively
targeted to build and preserve affordable housing.
It also eliminates the Choice Neighborhoods Program, which
provides resources to communities to build and rehabilitate
affordable housing, and eliminates the HOME Investment
Partnership programs, the largest Federal program dedicated
exclusively to increasing the availability of adequate
affordable housing for a very, very low-income families.
In the Department's own budget, you cite a woman from
Georgia, and I have blown up a printout of it for you. In your
own words, you know, you talk about how this very successful
story, how she transitioned from assisted housing, and
highlight, you know, her success of becoming a homeowner, which
is what we all strive to.
The problem is that while you are promoting the story, and
promoting the great work that all of you did helping her, your
budget completely cuts this program. Given all the cuts, how
can this Committee, and more importantly, the American people,
take this administration seriously? That you really want to
deal with homelessness in our community? That you really
believe that helping our local cities, and counties, and local
jurisdictions; that they can do better when you are failing to
provide the proper funding that they need?
You know, as a Former Mayor, City Councilwoman and State
Legislator, I take this seriously. And I also believe that the
Federal Government has a role to play.
Let me give you an example why we need to have some
oversight, and ensure that we are providing assistance to our
communities. Not in, you know, words, but actual funding. All
of our communities are strapped for funding. They are working
really hard to try to balance their budget every single year.
In the city of Los Angeles, they had an issue with
asbestos, inner flooring. Now, the city under OSHA, CAL OSHA,
because they were exposing their workers, children, and the
people that lived in those communities, and they refuse to stop
issuing work orders, enforcing their employees to remove the
asbestos flooring.
They were given a LOFA violation. So in cases like this, of
gross negligence, of gross incompetence, there is a need for
the Federal Government to step in and say, we need to do
better. And where are the funds to ensure that we are improving
these housing units, so that children can grow up in an
environment that is healthy for them?
So, I would like for you to address some of the comments
that I have as it relates to these horrific cuts that you are
proposing.
Secretary Carson. It is very difficult to get the concept
across that I like those programs. I think they are good
programs. Can we afford them when we continue to create the
kind of debt that we are going to pass on to the next
generation and ruin their lives.
Ms. Torres. I agree with you 100 percent. I was in a State
Legislature when we shut down California for 6 months. We had a
$15 billion deficit. However, the Republican Congress has
proven that they are not serious about doing that. When they
gave those tax cuts for the top 1 percent, and put us trillions
into--added trillions to our deficit. So how can you say that?
Secretary Carson. Well, I am not saying that you should get
rid of the program. I am saying that the program should be
funded by the State. Not necessarily by the Federal Government.
We have already demonstrated that these programs work, OK, that
was good. But can you continue to do something, can you sail
toward an iceberg that you know is going to kill you? Well,
maybe you should change your direction.
Ms. Torres. Maybe we should stop helping the top 1 percent,
and start helping the poor working-class communities across
America that are the backbone of our economy.
And I yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Mr. Quigley?
Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank
you for being here. I guess for us round four, I just feel
obliged. Ms. Clark referenced the nondiscrimination guidance
for LGBT individuals under the Equal Access Rule. Again, we
have been talking about this for some time. Where we left it
last year, you were not going to replace the guidance that
instructs providers how to do this. And I want to paraphrase, I
want to make it right. He said I wouldn't like the guidance you
put up, and I believe presumably because in my mind it would
allow or promote discrimination against LGBTQ, particularly the
trans community. It is still not up. How does the program
operate, how does the law that requires equal access work
without guidance?
Secretary Carson. Appropriate guidance is going to be put
up, it is being worked on. But the reason that I said --
Mr. Quigley. For your reference, that is the third year in
a row you have said that, sir.
Secretary Carson. The reason that I said that, the reason I
said you probably wouldn't like it, is because from what you
have said in the past, you don't agree with my statement that
everybody gets equal rights, but nobody gets extra rights.
Mr. Quigley. Who gets special rights in non-discrimination?
Secretary Carson. Well let's put it this way----
Mr. Quigley. You will find it is someone they have to get
special rights just to use the shelter?
Secretary Carson. I can tell you the answer. When you have
a single sex shelter and it is there specifically for women who
are abused, and then people come in who do not appear to be
women but they say they are women and you have to accept them,
does that impinge upon the rights of those women? We have a lot
of documentation from those women that says it does impinge
upon their rights. So if you can give, and I said this when I
came to Chicago and spoke with your group, which I enjoyed
being with them, I thought they were great people. But I said
this, if you can show me how you take care of that individual
who, the only thing you want to do is go on the basis of what
they say their gender is, you can show me how to be fair to
them and at the same time be fair to those women who are saying
they are very uncomfortable with that, I am all ears.
Mr. Quigley. You are the only person I have ever heard
bring up that issue. And in 3 years, first of all, in 3 years
we don't have the guidance, which belies any credibility you
have that, respectfully, that this is ever going to happen. So
that means in 3 years the protections haven't been in place.
You have never documented what you just talked about and the
extraordinary, I cannot even begin to imagine how people feel.
So you are telling the trans community that because of how
you perceive how some people react to them, it is OK to
discriminate against them?
Secretary Carson. I have lots of letters from women's
groups. It is not just how I perceive it.
Mr. Quigley. So let's just assume for a second that there
is some people out there who object to this. You are saying
that because some people think it is OK to discriminate, that
you have to go along with that too, despite the law.
Secretary Carson. That is not what I am saying at all.
Mr. Quigley. But you are saying that if someone doesn't
like someone else in that shelter, for whatever reasons, that
you can allow discrimination against those people.
Secretary Carson. No, what I am saying is we have to take
everybody's feelings into consideration. You cannot just select
a group and say that their feelings trump everyone else's
groups.
Mr. Quigley. It goes back to the basics. There have always
been people who discriminate against others. What you are
saying is those people have the right to do that and therefore
the Federal Government can back up that right to discriminate.
And let us understand----
Secretary Carson. That's not true.
Mr. Quigley [continuing]. these are people who are going to
be on the street. Is this discrimination that you are hearing
about, is this based on, what, their notion of what their faith
tells them it is OK to hate other people?
Secretary Carson. I want everybody to be taken care of, and
I have suggested----
Mr. Quigley. But they are not if they are not being allowed
to participate because somebody else thinks it is OK to
discriminate.
Secretary Carson. I suggested that there are ways to do
that. There are----
Mr. Quigley. And you are telling the trans community that
they cannot make a decision as to what they are, that they are
not best----
Secretary Carson. I am saying that no one's rights get to
obliterate everybody else's rights.
Mr. Quigley. You are pretty well obliterated when you are
on the street and you are not allowed to be in the facility,
you know, that's the fundamental right that is being taken care
of, not your notion that someone else feels it is OK to
discriminate.
Secretary Carson. Can you do this for me? Can you, because
I know you are passionate about this issue. Can you come up----
Mr. Quigley. I am as passionate as the people on the
street.
Secretary Carson. Can you come up with a way that is fair
to all the different groups that are involved?
Mr. Quigley. Yes. There is no discrimination. You cannot
discriminate because there are some people who you tell us say
they don't like other people because of the way they look.
Secretary Carson. We agree on that. I am still asking you--
--
Mr. Quigley. We do not agree. First of all, I want to make
clear we do not agree on any of that.
Secretary Carson. I am asking you to come up with a
solution that takes into consideration----
Mr. Quigley. The law says you cannot discriminate, that's
my solution.
Mr. Price. We will begin our second round of questions. And
I want to start with an example that is very close to home for
me. And I am sure you know about it already.
The Durham Housing Authority has had well publicized
problems involving carbon monoxide exposure, lack of heat, and
numerous other issues. The development we are talking about is
called Mcdugal Terrace. It received failing inspection scores
for years, and that was not because of carbon monoxide. Carbon
monoxide testing was not part of that process, but they still
failed.
Hundreds of residents, including families with small
children, had to be evacuated due to high levels of carbon
monoxide. And the housing authority is currently conducting
emergency repairs and moving people in as fast as they can.
It has become painfully obvious that our public housing
stock has deteriorated to the point of mortal danger for
residents.
I want to thank your field office, the Greensborough HUD
field office, the people who have assisted our housing
authority. I understand that Durham is requesting funding from
the Public Housing Emergency Capital Fund to reimburse some of
these repair expenses.
So I first of all want to ask for your commitment that HUD
will continue to work collaborative with Durham during this
crisis, and that you will ensure the delivery of any and all
Emergency Capital Funds that Durham is eligible to receive.
Secretary Carson. We have been working very closely with
them, we want to make sure that they are taken care of.
Mr. Price. So you are giving me that commitment today?
Secretary Carson. Absolutely.
Mr. Price. All right. Thank you, I appreciate that. I want
to now broaden this a bit to recollect that deaths due to
carbon monoxide poisoning were reported at South Carolina last
year. And in that context, you indicated that you planned to
move forward with the rule to require PHAs to install carbon
monoxide detectors in certain units. And you referred earlier
today to grants that you have released to purchase and install
carbon monoxide detectors, but no rule has been issued yet as
far as I know. So let me ask you a few related questions with
regard to that.
First of all, can you update us on the progress you are
making in terms of releasing a proposed rule?
And then the inspection process, if you could also respond
to that. Last year you said you had just included in the
inspection process a requirement that inspections check for
working detectors. Is that still being done, and what results
are you getting from it?
And when you talk about inspecting and checking, are you
not just checking about whether detectors are there, but what
the carbon monoxide levels in the units might be?
Secretary Carson. OK. Well obviously, like everyone else,
we were devastated by the news about the people who died. And
obviously that sparked a lot of activity. And that's why we
went back and looked at the rules that were in place and
enhanced those rules.
But, you know, we want an actual law to be put in place so
we are working with legislatures to actually put a law in place
because that can be done a lot faster than the rule making
process, and maybe some----
Mr. Price. Mr. Secretary, let me just interject that we
passed such a bill in the House. The sponsor was Representative
Chuy Garcia, passed in September, sitting on Mitch McConnell's
desk.
Secretary Carson. Well the Senate, as you know, is working
on the bill as well, right?
Mr. Price. You tell me. I hope that you are pushing them to
do just that. We have had limited success.
Secretary Carson. Yeah. Senator Scott and one of the
Democrats is working with him on that.
Mr. Price. Good. Well that is good to know. And we, as I
said, passed that law here because we agree with you that a law
would be helpful. But I wouldn't be quick to assume that you
don't have the authority you need already. We are talking about
very serious matters here, I think it is fair to characterize
it as an emergency.
You have a statutory mission to ensure that housing is
safe, decent, and sanitary.
Secretary Carson. I agree.
Mr. Price. So my own view would be, and you said yourself a
year ago that you planned to proceed with the rule.
Secretary Carson. And we are doing everything we can but we
want to get an actual law on the books regarding it. You know
we have communicate with all of the public housing and assisted
housing projects, we have made it clear to them that we expect
that the carbon monoxide detectors to be in place and expect
them to be working. We have made it part of the inspection
process. As you know, we are revamping the entire inspection
process with the ISPIRE system, National Standards for the
Physical Inspection of Real Estate. And we have tightened that
up. We have gotten rid of inappropriate inspectors, we have
retrained inspectors to bring consistency to the process. This
is a matter that is very, very important, and it has been going
on for decades, and it is unacceptable.
Mr. Price. Good. It has, and you are of course right that
it is urgent. And I am trying to get as specific as I possibly
can in getting your answer on this.
Is there a rule in process, as you suggested a year ago,
that we can expect you to be promulgating about this?
Secretary Carson. We are working on a rule simultaneously
as the Senate is working on the law.
Mr. Price. All right. And then your inspections, I
understood you just now to say your inspections do at this
moment include inspections for the presence of detectors?
Secretary Carson. That's correct. Not just the presence,
but they have to be functional.
Mr. Price. Functional detectors, that's what I mean. And
carbon monoxide levels, that would be the way you test whether
the detectors are functional, right?
Secretary Carson. I don't know that the inspectors go in
with some type of monitor to find out what the carbon monoxide
levels are.
Mr. Price. Would that be desirable?
Secretary Carson. I am not sure that that's practical
because----
Mr. Price. I believe that it is quite practical. In Durham
just now we have been doing it in every single unit, and the
results have not been happy ones. So it is a question of course
to whether the detectors are functioning.
Secretary Carson. Well the inspectors themselves. Maybe the
public housing authorities might be able to do that. The
inspectors themselves would be tremendously slowed down if they
are going to go in and do a carbon monoxide evaluation on each
unit.
Mr. Price. All right. There are sampling techniques and
other ways that one might approach some aspect to this,
although every single apartment should be inspected for the
presence of detectors.
Secretary Carson. I agree.
Mr. Price. I think we can agree on that.
Secretary Carson. And it has to be functional.
Mr. Price. All right. We are going to pursue this. We want
to be kept apprised of the progress toward a rule being
promulgated. We of course will work jointly on legislation, and
the inspection protocols, of course. If you want to furnish any
information for the record to clarify that, that would be
helpful as well.
Secretary Carson. I appreciate your interest in that. We
are every bit as interested.
Mr. Price. Thank you, sir. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I
am pleased that you have again placed priority on homelessness,
the issues of homelessness and homeless programs in your
budget. Again, you requested I believe $2.8 billion for
homeless assistant grants, again showing this commitment.
There has been, as you know, Mr. Secretary, some
significant progress done. But there have been some new
challenges that have emerged. And according to HUD's most
recent point in time count, homelessness increase in 2019 over
the previous year with a particularly sharp spike in
California, California cities and there's been some talk about
that during this hearing.
So can you describe HUD's strategy to address this sudden
increase in homeless in some areas of our country now? While I
ask that, let me just throw some thoughts out there. Obviously
as we look at this challenge in some parts of the country, we
shouldn't lose sight, as you know, Mr. Secretary, that there
are some areas that have been real successes.
Secretary Carson. Yes.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. In Miami, Miami-Dade County has made great
strides in reducing homelessness.
Secretary Carson. Absolutely.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And you were down there when, in essence,
to announce that great milestone, right, and basically nearly
eliminating homelessness among Veterans in Miami-Dade County.
So while we deal with some of the spikes, will you commit to
working with a broad range of stakeholders to pursue, you know,
policy changes in those areas that are not working?
Secretary Carson. Right.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. While still making sure that we, you know,
we recognize that there some areas and some parts of the
country where some really good things are happening.
Secretary Carson. Absolutely. And, you know, you look at
the areas where it is not working, you know, you are not taking
care of mentally ill people, you are not taking care of drug
addicted people. And sometimes there is a distorted view of
what compassion is. They think it is compassionate to let
people be on the street with filth, with feces, with urine,
with needles, with people attacking them with all kinds of
dangers. That's not compassion at all. Real compassion is
getting those people into a place where they have a safe bed to
sleep in, where they have those drug problems taken care of,
where their mental issues can be dealt with, where their
physical issues can be dealt with, and where you can provide
the kind of wrap-around services that get them back on their
feet. And that is what we are planning.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Let me talk again about an issue that we
have had multiple conversations over the past, about CDBGR,
right? This certainly does it but it hasn't been authorized.
And so last, when was it, it was not this Congress, there was a
bipartisan bill, the Wagner-Green bill, which would
reauthorize, or actually not reauthorize, authorize, CDBGR, and
it would in essence do two things. It would establish a
permanent consistent guidelines for the program, which
obviously potentially reduce the time that it takes for those
dollars to get out. So I know what you would like, as we have
had that conversation.
Secretary Carson. Right.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And the second thing it would permanently
establish a mitigation program, something that this
subcommittee obviously I guess was on the forefront of
creating. Again, to make our communities more resilient.
So this bill is in the Senate. You know the old adage, Mr.
Secretary, the other party may be the advisory, but the Senate
is the enemy, right, of the House. But is that something that
you support, that bill, and to have an authorized program as
opposed to having to go through this process every time?
Secretary Carson. I like the concept, and it is something
that we have been proposing. Because it takes way too long
after disaster to get aid to people. And if we can codify a lot
of the things that are commonly done with all of these grants,
we can start somebody on second base instead of home base in
terms of getting around. And absolutely that is something that
we support.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I actually wanted to talk a little bit
about your self-sufficiency, which has been a cornerstone of
your, I think as your time as Secretary. And your life story,
obviously, I think gives some added legitimacy to this issue.
In your budget you provide significant new funding for
programs to help families achieve economic security. I guess
you are proposing $90 million for Family Self-Sufficiency
Programs.
Secretary Carson. Actually $190 million.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. What was that?
Secretary Carson. $190 million.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. $190 million. I stand corrected. And my
time is running out, but I'd like to follow up with you on
that, you know, what are the benefits, what are you looking at
there? Because obviously you have, that's an area that I
believe is something you are----
Secretary Carson. It is big for me because you know our
people are our most precious resource and we are going to have
to compete with places that have 4 times our population, China
and India. If we don't develop our people, we are not going to
be able to do it. It is as simple as that.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I look forward to working them, Mr.
Secretary. Thank you.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Ms. Torres.
Ms. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Carson, I
want to talk to you about the mix status rule as it relates to
families whose children may be citizens, the parents of those
children may be legal residents, but grandma may be
undocumented.
HUD has regulations already to deal broadly with
prohibiting housing assistance to non-citizens. Despite this,
last year you decided to propose a change that if a family in
Federally assisted housing has one person in the household who
was not a citizen or without certain legal status, that the
entire family would be kicked out of their housing unit. This
rule could potentially put 55,000 children, throw them out into
the street.
I cannot imagine the compassion that you talked about
earlier in dealing with drug addicts. I cannot imagine where
the compassion would come from where we would write a rule that
would put 55,000 children, kicked them out into the street.
What type of an environment, a healthy environment, could they
grow up in? Do you think a child living in the street today
could accomplish as much as you have accomplished in your life
career? I am trying to understand why we have a need to add
more stricter regulations or, frankly, to be so mean spirited
to families here in the U.S.
Secretary Carson. Well let's talk about compassion. What
about those hundreds of thousands of American families who have
been on the waiting list to get assisted housing for years.
Ms. Torres. But these people did not jump a list. These
people were also part of that wait list.
Secretary Carson. The Housing and Community Development Act
of 1980, Section 214, specifically says that the Secretary of
HUD may not grant assistance to them. And a subsection says it
may not grant assistance to those who are aiding people who are
not here legally. So as I said last year, and it stands today,
if we don't like that, change the law.
Ms. Torres. Well we can only do so much as far as changing
the law. But you continue to push rules that are frankly
kicking children and families into the street. I am not here to
say you shall house people that don't have legal status, I'm
talking about citizen children, children that have been born
here that you will kick out into the street as a result of this
rule.
We already have regulations dealing with mixed status
families. And the current regulations, what it does is it says
that anyone living in that household should pay their fair
share of that expenditure. So if the rent is $100 and four
people live in that household, and one of them is undocumented,
then the rent that we could help subsidize is $75; correct?
Secretary Carson. Well that was not the original intent of
the law or the way it was written, that was a loophole that was
placed because they had difficulty determining who was here
legally and who was not. That is no longer the case, you now
have the same system and it's very easy to make that
determination and therefore the law should be carried out as it
is written.
However, we have provided a 6-month deferral which can be
reupped two additional times, 18 months. That's plenty of time
to change the law if the body of Congress feels that it should
be changed.
Ms. Torres. There's no need for this regulation when we
already have strict rules that address the concern.
I want to move on to CDBG and elimination of community
block grants. It's another elimination. These funds are
critical to communities like my home city of Pomona, working
class community.
I think I've said this to you before, I can sit on my bed
in my bedroom and hear gunshots every single day across the
freeway from where I live. CDBG funds help our communities
ensure that we are targeting very, very poor communities to
ensure that the children have access to quality of life
programs to help them succeed. So why would we cut those
programs?
Secretary Carson. Well, you know, I have explained it
several times before but I will do it one more time.
Ms. Torres. But I don't think you understand how critical
they are. That's why we continue to bring this to the table.
Secretary Carson. I have not said that they are not
critical. What I have said is there may be better ways to fund
them. I have also said that we are working on a revision of the
rule and we are very close to completing that, it is going to
be going back and forth to OMB and you will be seeing that very
soon.
Ms. Torres. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Price. Mr. Quigley.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, our
last get together, the same theme but different topic. I am
looking at two studies that analyze the data collected by the
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. And they found widespread
discrimination, again, against same sex couples in the mortgage
industry.
One of the studies specifically examined loans insured by
the Federal Housing Administration, or HUD, and found that gay
male couples, especially those including a person of color,
were significantly less likely to have their loans approved
than white heterosexual couples with similar profiles.
What is your department doing to address discrimination
against LGBDQ people, especially people of color, in the
mortgage industry?
Secretary Carson. You know, we get about 8,000 complaints a
year of discrimination against one of the protected classes. We
have not received a lot in that particular category. Obviously
I would detest such a thing. And if you know of specific cases,
please let us know, our FHEO office is very active in pursuing
such things.
Mr. Quigley. Have you let it known within the Agency that
you won't tolerate this especially relating to these issues?
Secretary Carson. Absolutely. I have made it very clear.
Mr. Quigley. We will pass these two studies on to you.
In a related matter, your department has proposed rules
that change the information that faith-based housing providers
are required to provide the clients they serve. Imagine, I
guess, individuals or families dealing with mental illness,
substance abuse disorder, HIV/AIDS or homelessness seeking
assistance. And what happens is the change that is being
proposed by HUD, these people could be forced to receive these
services from a faith-based provider, even though the
beneficiaries know that this provider condemns them for who
they are.
The current regulation that you are seeking to change
requires that the agencies inform them of their right to
request an alternative provider. Your proposed rules give them
no notice of this ability and no help with finding an
alternative. These people possibly were getting absolutely no
services. How does providing the beneficiaries with just a
notice of their alternatives and their rights become a burden?
Secretary Carson. As long as it is applied equally to every
provider, it is not a problem.
Mr. Quigley. But what you are saying is you are not letting
the beneficiaries know that they have an alternative to go to a
provider that doesn't discriminate against them.
Secretary Carson. If no one else is required to do that, a
faith-based organization should not be, everybody should be
required to do the same thing is what I am saying.
Mr. Quigley. Then my strong suggestion is that you change
what you are modifying here and tell them that the rules apply
to all providers. But if they are not faith-based, that the
possibility that their objectives in their by-laws
discriminate, you don't have the same problem. So what you are
saying is fine, but you're not telling the faith-based people,
providers, that they have to provide alternatives and let
people know of their rights to alternatives under what you are
proposing now.
Secretary Carson. I would say if everybody has to say what
all the alternatives are, I don't have a problem with it. If
you are only selecting out faith-based organizations and saying
they have to do it, that's discrimination.
Mr. Quigley. Well, no, but we are talking about faith-based
organizations that condemn the LGBTQ community in particular
for who they are. And under the current rules that we are
living under, that they have alternatives and here is what they
are. That is not what you are talking about here.
Secretary Carson. If they are faith-based organizations and
their faith is based on the Bible, then they certainly should
not be condemning anyone.
Mr. Quigley. But they do.
Secretary Carson. And I am saying that we are not getting
those----
Mr. Quigley. Telling them it is OK. What we have been
talking about for 4 years.
Secretary Carson. We are not getting those complaints.
Where are they going, who are they complaining to?
Mr. Quigley. There is a reason that all these rules got put
in place. With all due respect, if you don't understand that
the trans community and the LGBTQ community as a whole haven't
been discriminated against, the person who believes that has
been living under a rock.
Secretary Carson. I am not saying they are not
discriminated against, I am saying we are not getting the
complaints. Where are they going? Can you help me understand
that?
Mr. Quigley. Well, we are past our time, but we obviously
need much longer time to talk about the fact that these rules
allow this discrimination to take place, and people, as a
result, won't be provided these services.
But my time is up again.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, let me return to the
public housing maintenance needs and the capital fund. We
discussed the situation in Durham. It is the tip of the iceberg
I am afraid in terms of the deterioration of public housing
stock.
This subcommittee has provided sizeable funding increases
in the last three fiscal years, but we recognize that we are
still falling short of what is required.
I am just puzzled by this budget request at exactly how we
are supposed to interpret your approach to this. It looks like
a shell game, and I hope you can show me why it isn't, you
know, how this all adds up. But just indulge me a minute here.
You first of all eliminate the Public Housing Capital Fund.
Now you move some funds to a new Public Housing Fund which
is really what's now called the Operating Fund, but then you
proceed to cut that fund by $977 million. You move funds into a
Moving to Work account with tenant based rental assistance, but
this is not new money. You seem to want to eliminate public
housing and move everyone into voucher programs via RAD
conversions.
So a certain amount of the public housing is going to be
converted, and that is taking place in Durham and other places,
we know that it has some promise. But an immediate conversion,
universal conversion, that isn't going to happen. And even when
it does happen, it would require a corresponding increase in
voucher programs and the rental assistance. But you are cutting
that too. You cut voucher renewals in TBRA by $371 million, end
up a billion short of what is required just to cover current
services.
So I am just asking you, what's going on here? I mean I
understand some of the proposals to move people out of public
housing and to rely less on public housing, but then those
alternatives are not funded. So how are we to interpret this,
and where do we start?
Secretary Carson. Well first of all let me just say that
the vouchers have not been decreased, and there no people who
are receiving vouchers now who are going to be eliminated from
them secondary to this budget.
Number two, you know, the budgetary process is a bilateral
process. That means, you know, the President presents his
budget, you know, Congress has their budget, the Senate has
their budget. And after all is said and done then they arrive
at a number. I understand that. And whatever that number is,
obviously we will utilize it in a very most appropriate way.
But just because the President's budget does not agree with
the Congressional budget doesn't mean that we haven't taken
into consideration all of these different people that we are
trying to serve.
But there are different ways to be able to handle these
issues. The RAD program being an excellent example, and one of
the reasons that we have requested $100 million to help, you
know, bridge some of the gaps. Congress has not seen fit to
provide that even though they agreed that the RAD program is a
good program. They have not agreed yet to lift the cap on RAD.
That's a problem because many of the revitalization programs
don't occur next year or the year after that, they occur 4 or 5
or 6 years down the road. People need to have the assurance
that the program is going to be there when they are trying to
create these revitalization programs.
So, you know, we are looking long term at these things and
that is why the proposals are the way they are, not just for
next year.
Mr. Price. Well once again we seem to have a disagreement
as to what the budget actually contains. I think there are two
aspects of this if I may break it down this way.
One is the prospect of immediate and universal RAD
conversions. You seem to be assuming that in budgetary terms
you seem to be assuming that.
Secretary Carson. Not at all. I know that it cannot happen
immediately. But it could help tremendously if the $100 million
was provided.
Mr. Price. Well the RAD conversions on any scale are going
to require more in the way of section 8 assistance. I mean that
is the whole idea of RAD is that these become subsidized rental
units. And as I said, that is not by any means totally a bad
idea.
Secretary Carson. Right.
Mr. Price. It may not be the silver bullet, but----
Secretary Carson. But it is a conversion from tenant based
to project based.
Mr. Price. All right. So I don't see the increase in
tenant-based rental assistance that that would require. In fact
what I see here, and I am looking at this budget line, tenant-
based rental assistance goes from fiscal 2020 enacted is $21
billion 502 million, your fiscal 2021 request is $21 billion
131 million. That's a substantial hundreds of millions of
dollars of a reduction in the program as it now stands, let
alone any kind of increase that large scale RADS would require.
Secretary Carson. If you want to send in your budget people
over to talk to my budget people, they can show you where there
is no one who is going to be negatively impacted by this.
Mr. Price. Well all right. That would appear to be
budgetary magic because just on the face of it the rental
assistance is, we----
Secretary Carson. I have insisted that we make sure that we
don't penalize any of the people that we are supporting.
Mr. Price. All right. Well we certainly share that
objective, and we will see what the numbers require. We have
written numbers into our budget for the last 3 years, Mr. Diaz-
Balart did the same thing to ensure that we could cover all the
current contracts and it certainly was nothing like what you
are proposing.
But my main point here is that the absence of this public
housing support is not accounted for anywhere else in the
budget, that's why I call it a shell game. And I would welcome
a demonstration as to where this money is in your budget
proposal. It just seems like everything is cut and you say they
are going to move to this but then that's cut.
Secretary Carson. Well the people who have been impacted by
the cut from $23 billion to $18 billion, those are the same
people who are going to be assisted in the $5 billion that was
put in the Family Self-Sufficiency Program.
Mr. Price. All right. We will work with you on getting
these numbers clarified. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Secretary, I think some of the most exciting activities taking
place in our public housing authorities is through the rental
system demonstration. And obviously, you know, when capital
funds there is never enough, right? When capital funds are
squeezed I know that innovative PHAs can turn and use this
tool, frankly, to make improvements, right, in their housing
stock.
So I have heard that to, and I represent 3 counties in
Florida, and I have heard that particularly from the director
of the largest PHA that I represent is Miami-Dade County. And I
know they use it rather effectively, but I also have other
areas that have smaller housing authorities.
And so are there ways that we can help those smaller
authorities that are not as big as, for example, Miami-Dade to
also utilize that tool, which I think they have a more
difficult time to do, right?
Secretary Carson. Well the key is giving them the ability
to have fungibility, you know, with the operating and the
capital funds. And to be able to use them in an unrestricted
way. And that makes a big difference.
And then, you know, also recognize that many of these
places are in opportunity zones where there are opportunity
funds. We haven't even begin to talk about how opportunity
funds are utilized to help to create economic activity.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Secretary, the time that I have left,
let me just, I happen to be a big fan and I mean this
sincerely, in this area of, you know, the fact that you are not
supposed to say anything nice about anybody from the other
party. But I happen to be a big fan of Congressman Quigley, he
is a brilliant guy, he is an active guy, and he is a legitimate
fighter, and very effective. And so I wish he was here because
I greatly respect and admire, and he has always been, I
consider him a freedom fighter, right.
But I just want to kind of throw something at you in a
different way, referring to the conversation that you and him
were having back and forth.
You were born in 1951, I believe.
Secretary Carson. Right.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And you weren't born with a so-called
white privilege I believe. You know, the United States has
changed a lot, I think for the better in so many ways, and
particularly when you talk about discrimination, all right. So,
this job, you are not doing it because it has been a pay
increase for you? Or maybe it is because it is less stressful
than other things that you have done in the past. I know that
brain surgery has got to really stressful.
So, I just want to kind of, in this time that I have left,
describe a little bit why. Why is it that you have, and I think
I know the reason because I have gotten to know you, but why is
it that you have taken a huge pay cut, this is--you get
criticized every day. So, why is it that you decided to take
this job when the President called you to be Secretary of HUD?
It is not exactly the most--you know, the least stressful or
the easiest job in the world.
Secretary Carson. I will tell you, it is very easy. It is
because I saw that it was going to be a terrible thing for me
to do, but I realized that there are a lot of people who came
before me. And if they all took the easy road and the relaxing
road, we wouldn't have the country that we have today.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. But you have never taken the easy road.
Secretary Carson. No.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I mean, you have never had it given to
you.
Secretary Carson. That is for sure.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. So, is that why, though, your commitment
to those who are least fortunate is so----
Secretary Carson. That is why, you know, I recognize that
with some opportunities, some changes, and some help climbing
that ladder, it is an enormous amount of potential and we just
can't afford to waste that potential.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Secretary, I will tell you, you have
been accessible to me. You have made your staff accessible to
me. I think you took a department that had great people but had
some issues and you have turned it around. And so, I just for
one will tell you that I am glad that you took this slight pay
cut and have decided to take on a very difficult task. But I
think you have done a job that, again, merits our respect, our
admiration.
Secretary Carson. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And I don't think anybody would disagree
with that, so thank you, sir.
Secretary Carson. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you.
Secretary Carson. And thanks to you all for what you did,
too, because it is a big pay cut, too, and a lot of criticism.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And Mr. Chairman, again, I think as
always, you have led this hearing like you lead all the
hearings, with fairness and thoughtfulness, so thank you sir.
Mr. Price. Thank you, appreciate that. And we will move to
the conclusion here with what I think will be a quick question.
But I do want to get one more thing on the record if we can all
just hang in here a few more minutes. And it does have to do,
Mr. Secretary, with what you referenced in your opening remarks
about the appointment of Mr. Couch as the Federal financial
monitor for disaster recovery funds for Puerto Rico and the
U.S. Virgin Islands.
I appreciate his qualifications and I take it at face value
what you said about your desire to expedite this process. But I
do have to say that the evidence is a little mixed so far and I
want to just ask, I hope, some helpful questions about it.
On January 22, we requested basic information on the
monitor. We haven't received any answer to that request. So, we
could--we would like to know what the duties of that monitor
are going to be, the authorities the monitor has, and from what
statute are those authorities derived. And then, for the
record, if you could provide perhaps an organizational chart of
the reporting structure of the monitor, including who is
supervising above and what the staff looks like below.
I say it is not particularly reassuring to not be able to
get those basic questions answered. We want to make sure that
what you stated turns out to be the case, that he is not a
hindrance, this isn't just another bureaucratic layer.
Secretary Carson. That is fair.
Mr. Price. But that actually it is a constructive partner,
he is a constructive partner, and that this appointment is
helpful in moving forward these recovery efforts in both Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Secretary Carson. We will get that for you.
Mr. Price. Perhaps today you could just lay out the answer
to those basic questions as to what those duties look like and
where the authorities come from.
Secretary Carson. I can tell you that very quickly. The
authorities come from the Secretary. We give him the authority
to monitor the grant agreement, make sure that it is carried
out appropriately, to look at the procurement sources to make
sure that they are in alignment with the requirements. And this
individual is weekly meeting with our senior staff that is in
concern with that particular endeavor and once a month, meets
with me as well.
And the monitor really is sort of a consolidation of lots
of different areas that we control and it makes it very easy
for the governor, for the head of Vivienda to get answers and
to get results by having just one person that they have to go
to.
Mr. Price. So, as I understand your answer, you are not
citing any particular statutory basis for this appointment. You
are saying that the monitor is acting as an extension of your
administrative responsibility and the reporting structure is to
you personally.
Secretary Carson. The reporting is to the head of CPD. That
is the way it is set up.
Mr. Price. All right. I think we do need some
clarification. I would still like to see that organizational
chart.
Secretary Carson. We will have that sent to you.
Mr. Price. All right. And a more precise indication, if you
will. It is the question of what kind of authority this
official has and this is not just an informational position
presumably or an oversight position. What kind of authorities
are located in this position and how does it operate up and
down the line? That is what we are looking for.
Secretary Carson. OK, we will give the whole organizational
chart. Not a problem.
Mr. Price. All right, I appreciate that. We will look for
that. And with that, we thank you again for appearing and for
your work and that of your associates at HUD. We look forward
to continuing to confer on these matters raised today and I am
sure much, much more in putting together a first rate workable
budget for 2021.
Secretary Carson. Thank you so much.
Mr. Price. You will have questions for the record probably
from a number of our members. If you would return the
information, the answers to those questions, information for
the record within 30 days from this Friday, that will let us
publish the transcript of today's hearing in a timely fashion.
Secretary Carson. Sounds good.
Mr. Price. Any final comments, Mr. Diaz-Balart?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. No, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Price. Thank you. With that, the hearing is adjourned.
Secretary Carson. Thank you.
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 11, 2020
----------
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION BUDGET REQUEST
WITNESS
STEVE DICKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Price. The hearing will come to order. Good morning,
everyone. Welcome to our third Subcommittee hearing of the
season. Today we'll examine the proposed fiscal year 2021
budget for the Federal Aviation Administration.
We are pleased that for the first time ever before this
subcommittee to have Administrator Steve Dickson on hand to
testify and answer our questions. We appreciate you being here.
The FAA provides critical services on behalf of the
traveling public every day. Millions of flights, both scheduled
and unscheduled, must safely navigate our national airspace,
the most complex in the world.
This year's FAA budget request, $17.5 billion in budgetary
resources, a decrease of about $96 million compared to last
year's enacted level. Overall, the request is essentially flat,
it eliminates $400 million for supplemental airport grants, and
then increases funding for the operations account, by $372
million, mostly to cover salary and retirement benefits.
Funding for the facilities and equipment account and the
research engineering and development account, see modest
reductions.
FAA identifies about $1 billion in proposed NextGen
investments in their budgetary request. That would allow the
agency to continue efforts to modernize the air traffic control
system, improve efficiency, and transition legacy equipment to
new platforms.
Emerging technologies including unmanned aerial systems and
a burgeoning commercial space industry hold great promise to
revolutionize the national airspace and boost our economy, but
they do pose challenges to the existing regulatory framework. A
total of about $144.5 million is requested for UAS programs,
and another $44 million for commercial space activities.
Yesterday was the 1-year anniversary of the Boeing MAX
tragedy in Ethiopia which killed 157 people. This Friday will
mark the 1-year anniversary of the FAA order that grounded the
MAX indefinitely.
These two anniversaries do remind us that safety must be
the FAA's highest priority. The public and the Congress expect
complete transparency, as the FAA works to safely return the
MAX to service, and evaluate outside recommendations to reform
their oversight procedures and the certification process.
Numerous committees and expert review bodies have
identified various areas of potential improvement for FAA's
regulatory procedures. Some recommendations such as bolstering
human factors and system safety expertise, are about acquiring
new skills and incorporating this knowledge into the
certification and flight standards process.
Others are specific to Organization Designation Authority,
or ODA, which has come under scrutiny in the wake of the Boeing
disasters. Initial reports suggests that private sector
employees who possess this delegated authority may face undue
pressures from management to prioritize production timelines,
over the safety of the traveling public. That is never
acceptable.
FAA oversight of ODA must extend not only to ensuring a
workable division of labor between the agency and private
firms, but also, above all, to ensure there is no slippage,
with regard to relentless attention to safety, in the
maintenance of a safety-first culture.
I would like to underscore that the recently-enacted Fiscal
2020 Omnibus package, directed FAA to respond to each
recommendation and report to the Appropriations Committee about
any resource or funding needs.
The agreement also included targeted investments to
jumpstart this process including $6.8 million for salaries and
expenses of additional staff with expertise and human factors,
system safety engineering, software, data analytics and other
valuable skills, $6.2 million to cover the cost of technical
training and credentialing for flight operations, aircraft
certification, and other specialties that support aviation
safety, $3 million for FAA to provide guidance and training to
international civil aviation authorities, foreign air carriers
and other stakeholders to better understand U.S. safety
standards, and how to integrate U.S.-manufactured aircraft into
their own regulatory frameworks.
I am glad to see the FAA's budget request proposes $70
million above the enacted level for the Office of Aviation
Safety, and other staff offices to improve FAA's safety
oversight.
I look forward to learning more about the activities
described in the request and how they complement these
investments, ongoing investments that I just described.
Of course we know that funding isn't everything, resources
must supplement the right policies, the right people with the
right skills, and again, a culture that prioritizes safety
above all else.
We are closely following the work of Chairman DeFazio and
our authorizing partners, on the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee. Last week they released preliminary
recommendations from their Boeing investigation. We look
forward to reviewing legislative proposals that emerge from
their extensive inquiry, and working with them to ensure that
FAA has appropriate funding to make any necessary changes.
Finally, I hope we can spend some time today, understanding
the FAA's role with respect to the public health threat posed
by the coronavirus.
Are you working with CDC, for example, to get guidance to
airports, airlines and the traveling public? What role is the
FAA playing in the administration's taskforce? What should the
American people know about their health risk if they choose
right now?
Administrator Dickson, the FAA and its dedicated employees
have an exceptionally challenging mission, one that is vital to
our safety, economic well-being, and international
competitiveness. I look forward to your testimony today, and
working with you to ensure that FAA has the resources required
to carry out its considerably responsibilities.
I would now like to recognize my partner and fried,
Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, the ranking member of this
subcommittee, for any remarks he might have.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
recognizing me, and far more importantly for holding this
important meeting.
Administrator Dickson, welcome to your first appearance
before this subcommittee; I was struck, Administrator, by
frankly your unique qualifications for this job. I don't know
if there is anybody that we have had, who has been more
qualified for the job that you are now holding.
So, 10 years you served as an Air Force Fighter Pilot, then
spent another three decades working for major airlines as a
commercial pilot, and I noticed a number of different
aircrafts, also as an executive.
I know this background is serving you well, as you lead the
FAA at a particularly challenging time as Mr. Chairman just
mentioned. It has been a year since the Boeing 737 MAX was
grounded, and following the tragedies in Ethiopia and
Indonesia, and I know you are hard at work in dealing with
those issues.
I look forward to hearing about the status of that review,
and how you plan to take the lessons learned from this review
to improve the certification, and other processes, safety
programs at the FAA.
The FAA is, and must continue to be a world leader in
aviation and safety, and I am proud of the work that Chairman
Price and I have in the subcommittee, and done over the years
to support your agency to make sure that you maintain that
global leadership role. We have done so through supporting air
traffic controller and safety inspector workforces, along with
investment in NextGen technologies.
I am pleased to see that in the Fiscal Year 2021 request
for the FAA, and you provide full funding for the controllers
and inspector workforce, we have also targeted investments for
safety initiatives. Again, very pleased to see that.
The budget request also includes good news for the NextGen
programs, something that the Chairman and I have, frankly,
spent a lot of time on. With almost 3 billion in the facilities
and equipment account to both maintain our current
infrastructure, and obviously also to invest in new
technologies.
Mr. Administrator, I will tell you, you may not know this,
but it is the first budget request in years that does not
include a number of budget gimmicks. And so, that has happened
for years. I was almost taken aback that you didn't do that,
but I am very grateful that your budget recommendation does not
do that.
And so again, I congratulate you for this common-sense
approach, especially when our focus must be to maintain the
global leadership in aviation, and also supporting the talented
workforce, that so many of us, by the way, meet as we go back
and forth to the various airports around the country.
Mr. Administrator, I also want us to not lose sight of the
important work that the FAA is doing to foster innovation in
the airspace, while you work to establish new, efficient routes
based on satellite technology, you are also dealing with new
entrants into the airspace.
Again, technology is changing rapidly. And so that includes
unmanned aircraft in commercial space vehicles, and that
obviously is a challenge, but it is also a great opportunity.
So these technologies present an almost, frankly,
incomprehensible number of opportunities, and we want to make
sure that you have the tools to meet those challenges.
And finally, as the Chairman mentioned, my friend mentioned
that the coronavirus is obviously something that is on
everybody's mind, it is an all-of-government approach to
dealing with this, and as it needs to be. And I know that you
have some key responsibilities, helping to facilitate
communication with the aviation industry, and also, as we were
talking about briefly before the meeting, making sure that your
folks, are safe and available to do the very important job that
they have to do.
So, just know that we are here to provide you all the
support that you need, all the help that you need to fulfill
this role. And we look forward to your update today, and to
continue working with you. And so, again, thank you for being
here.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Mr. Administrator, we are happy to
have you proceed now. Your full testimony will be put into the
record. We are inviting you to speak for 5 minutes or so, and
then we will have lots of questions. Thank you.
Mr. Dickson. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman Price,
and Ranking Member Diaz-Balart, and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss
the administration's fiscal year 2021 budget request for the
FAA.
Before I begin, I would like to say a few words about the
737 MAX. As you know, our international air transportation
network is a tightly woven fabric. It is vital to the world's
economy. When that fabric rips, we feel the impact globally. We
have to look no further than the Lion Air and Ethiopian
Airlines Boeing 737 MAX crashes to understand this.
On board Ethiopian Airlines Flight ET302, which as noted
did crashed 1 year ago, yesterday, were the citizens of 35
countries, and on behalf of everyone at the FAA, I would like
to, once again, extend our deepest sympathy and condolences to
the families of the victims of both accidents.
We will honor the memory of those who lost their lives by
working tirelessly every day to ensure the highest possible
margin of safety in the global aviation system.
The administration's $17.5 billion request also honors
those on board by funding a broad array of new safety
enhancements, while maintaining the day-to-day operations of
the safest, most efficient and complex aerospace in the world.
The budget includes $15 million for the staffing and
infrastructure enhancements we need to begin implementing the
various recommendations we received following the MAX crashes.
That input, which we welcome, includes moving toward a more
holistic versus transactional, item-by-time approach to
certification, integrating human factors considerations more
effectively throughout the design process and finally,
promoting an environment of just culture and Safety Management
Systems for all industries involved in the aerospace system.
To support these themes we are requesting $5 million to
recruit additional specialized skills, such as more human
factors experts and software engineers, and $5 million for a
new system that tracks employee training, qualifications and
certifications to ensure our aviation safety workforce has the
skills and knowledge required to execute our programs.
We are requesting $7 million to stand up a new office to
oversee all Organization Designation Authorities or ODA in line
with congressional direction.
The budget includes almost $5 million in new funding to
support improvements to several safety oversight systems such
as Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing, or ASIAS,
and the Aviation Safety Reporting Program. We are requesting an
additional $13 million to safeguard against internal and
external cyber threats as well as to protect our new
technologies against the threat of cyber-attacks.
Along with investments in aviation safety, the budget will
fund efforts to integrate new entrants into the national
airspace system. It will also operationalize new technologies
and systems to modernize how we manage traffic and make
important investments in our Nation's aviation infrastructure.
We will provide nearly $1 billion for NextGen investment
supporting the NextGen Advisory Committee's priorities,
including initiatives for traffic flow and metering tools.
These efforts will continue the operationalization of NextGen
to unlock benefits for all the users of the National Airspace
System.
We will also invest in innovation with $144 million for
work related to unmanned aircraft system, or UAS, nearly one-
third of which will be used to further develop an unmanned
aircraft system traffic management solution commonly called
UTM. UTM is a critical enabler of the more advanced uses of UAS
such as package delivery and urban air mobility.
For commercial space activities, our request of more than
$44 million will speed the processing of licenses and approvals
and streamline regulatory requirements. These funds will also
help the FAA continue to advance the integration of space
operations into the National Airspace System via automation
tools such as the Space Data Integrator or SDI.
Our $3.35 billion request for Airport Improvement Program
grants reflects the FAA's commitment to our Nation's
infrastructure and provides the funding needed to ensure
safety, capacity and efficiency at our Nation's airports. It
supports our continued focus on safety related development
projects including projects to reduce runway incursions and to
reduce the risk of wrong surface takeoffs and landings.
In conclusion, this budget is a reflection on the
importance of aviation to our Nation's economy and the work the
Agency needs to continue to pursue in order to continue to
enhance safety and stimulate innovation. Through the continued
investments in this budget, the FAA will remain the world's
aviation leader. And now sir, I am happy to take your and the
Committee's questions.
Mr. Price. Thank you. I will start and we will focus in on
the Coronavirus situation that you are confronting. Your
regulatory and oversight responsibilities are----take place at
several levels. I want to concentrate on the possible
transmission of contagious diseases on commercial flights.
Health screenings prior to boarding aren't fool proof as we all
know. Once on board, both passengers and crew members are
breathing in recirculated air, are in close proximity and so
forth.
So, could you tell us what the FAA requires with regards to
the quality of the air circulating inside airplanes and the
cleanliness of the surfaces inside those airplanes and what you
are doing to enhance both of those situations. What guidance
are you giving? Is the CDC giving you with regard to
transporting and tracing sick passengers and can you also
clarify the FAA's role with regards to the White House task
force? The overall task force overseeing the effort.
Mr. Dickson. There are several aspects I will undertake
just in broad terms. As was mentioned earlier, we have a whole
of government approach working within the task force. The
Department of Transportation is part of the task force and the
FAA is supporting those efforts.
The lead agencies are CDC and Homeland Security. But as the
focal point for aviation, the FAA has played a key role in
ensuring that CDC guidance and information is provided in a
timely fashion both of the traveling public, to flight crew
members and to all stakeholders in the aviation system
including our own employees in the FAA as well. Today alone, I
believe we have 12 to 14 scheduled contacts and a number of
offline conversations as the situation continues to evolve.
In terms of your question on air quality, there are
specific standards that regulate the quality of air on
aircraft. Specifically, there has to be sufficient ventilation
and lack of contaminants in the air in terms of noxious fumes
and things like that. Also, the cabin air altitude cannot be
above 8,000 feet and air carriers are required to report any
deficiencies in terms of air quality on aircraft in terms of
smoke and fume events.
Working with the CDC and also the process by which aircraft
are designed and have been studied over the years, the air
quality within commercial aircraft is on par with what we see
in public buildings and also within homes. And so, the risk to
the public is no higher than it would be in any area where you
have folks gathered. So, the same criteria really apply in
terms of considerations the CDC is providing.
In addition to that, all the air carriers have reviewed
their cleaning protocols, the substances they are using both on
the flight deck and back in the passenger cabin. Those
requirements, the CDC has updated them within the last week and
we have provided that information to air carriers. I have
several examples I can share with the Committee if you would
like on additional measures that the passenger carriers are
taking to ensure sterile surfaces on the aircraft.
Mr. Price. I think there is a good deal of public,
certainly apprehension, maybe misunderstanding about this air
quality question. How is it that that degree of purity, freedom
from contaminants can be maintained? Is there a way of
enhancing that and as a generalization you just made that does
apply to pathogens, to airborne pathogens? That one is to
conclude by virtue of what you just said that that risk is no
greater than it is in normal public places?
Mr. Dickson. Yes, sir. The ventilation requirements as
aircraft are designed and certified require that they meet
certain standards in terms of adequate ventilation on the
aircraft. Specifically, if you have an issue with fumes,
pollen, those types of things, these things are required to be
reported by the airlines. And if there is any indication that
there is a problem with the system on the aircraft, they have
to report that.
But we do see that the research that has been done over the
years is that there is really not any significant difference in
what you would have in a building such as we are sitting in
today in terms of air quality.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sir, I understand
that the FAA is about to undertake an airspace Metroplex
redesign in south Florida with obviously potential airplane
noise impacts for individuals in communities close to Miami
International Airport. As you know, Miami International Airport
is almost in the middle of town, right, and there is not a lot
of flexibility. So, let me throw a couple questions at you, let
me throw them all at the same time and you can answer them as
you see fit.
What is that schedule for the airspace redesign? What are
the FAA's plans to engage the community as far as noise impacts
of the redesign? And I know that there already have been, I
guess, some public hearings and meetings already took place.
Will there be a dedicated staff group or people to engage with
the community?
And I think a key one too is having you considered putting
one person who is the go to person as opposed to just having,
you know, people's complaints are always, you know, who is in
charge, who is accountable. I think that would be very helpful
as well. So, those are the issues I wanted you to kind of
discuss with me.
Mr. Dickson. Well, thank you for the question. As you
noted, there is an ongoing project to redesign the airspace in
central and south Florida that is underway. There have been a
number of workshops, I believe 20 workshops within the last
year in terms of engaging congressional staff and local
officials as well. There are another 17 that are planned for
this year and we have scheduled public meetings. We have
another 20 scheduled.
In terms of the--where the process itself stands, we are
undergoing the draft initial environmental review of the
project. Which we expect to be completed sometime later this
spring. And then there will be a comment period and that will
be finalized this fall. The actual flight procedures themselves
will be implemented as we move forward in the calendar year
2021 probably between the spring and the fall in several
tranches of improvements.
In terms of a single point of contact, we use our regional
administrators as the point of contact. In addition to that, we
have currently 8 noise community engagement officials. We are
asking for three additional ones. And we deploy those around
the system wherever the need is. Because as we have various
projects that are implemented, they are subject matter experts
but they are not tied to a specific geographical area because
we have projects going on in various parts of the country where
we can use those resources.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Good. Let me, in the same vein but the,
what is it called, the CLEEN program, whatever it actually
stands for, Continuous Lower Energy Emissions and Noise
Program. We have invested, the subcommittee has invested about
$125 million in that program since 2010. And again, to help
industry develop more efficient and quieter engines because
that would be--that would go a long way to solving the issue,
right? So, if this succeeds, it would obviously again, cut down
on a lot of the concerns that most people have is noise
related.
And so, what progress has been made by this program to
reduce potential to make quieter engines? And what further
progress do you expect, you know, within the next 5 or 10
years? Is this something that you think has promise?
Mr. Dickson. Well, thanks for the question, it is a great
point. The newer generation jet engines are quieter than we
have ever seen and more efficient frankly and more
environmentally friendly than we have ever seen before. And the
CLEEN program over the years has allowed us to bring industry
together to pursue those design concepts.
In fiscal year 2021, we are asking for an additional $18
million to keep the project going. And you have also seen
tremendous fleet renewal by the large U.S. carriers over the
last 5 or 6 years as they have been financially able to replace
older aircraft. So, we have seen hundreds of narrow body orders
that also are our highest frequency and highest cadence users
of domestic U.S. airspace. So, that has been a benefit because
it has also brought on more efficient air frames as well as
more efficient and lower noise profile engines as well.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. So again, they are quieter and more
efficient and cleaner. You may not have to eliminate aircraft
travel after all, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Ms. Lawrence.
Ms. Lawrence. Thank you. Mr. Dickson, since arriving in
Congress it has been a passion of mine to fight for women's
rights and increasing women opportunities in what some would
consider untraditional fields of study. That includes numerous
positions within the aviation industry. As you know, throughout
history, women have been grossly underrepresented in the
aviation industry. Accounting for only 6 percent of pilots and
4 percent of flight engineers.
As co-chair of both the women's caucus and the skilled
American workforce caucus it is my responsibility to ensure
that every little girl that aspires to be the next Amelia
Earhart or Betsy Coleman has the proper resources to do so. And
as the administrator of FAA, I would argue you you have that
same responsibility as I do.
In 2010, the FAA established the Educational Partnership
Initiative. A program meant to focus on the relationships
between institutions representing underserved groups in diverse
populations such as aerospace studies, science engineering, air
traffic control.
In particular, this is the exact type of program that the
government should be prioritizing. But unfortunately, I am
uncertain whether that is happening. So, could you please
provide me today with the status of the educational partnership
initiative and how the Department looks to build upon the
program.
Mr. Dickson. Well, thank you for the question. And I am in
the strongest agreement I can possibly be. That we need to
eliminate barriers to women and underserved portions of our
population to show them what great opportunities there are in
aviation. Because it is a tremendous career and I think that a
lot of times young people don't see it as something that they
can do.
I will have to get back to you on the specifics of the
program that you mentioned. But we do have a number of
initiatives working with the Department of Transportation,
other Federal agencies, academia, the private sector, to
promote aviation careers and eliminate barriers to those who
want to take advantage of those opportunities.
[Mr. Dickson responded for the record:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lawrence. So, Mr. Dickson, please provide and if you
don't have, I think there should be a dedicated study on how
you can include and embrace and do programs to introduce more
women into your work force.
In my district over the past few years, thousands of
families have been exposed and impacted by PFAS contaminants.
The toxic substance is included in firefighting foam which
commercial airports are mandated to use throughout their
operations.
Under the 2018 FAA reauthorization bill, however this
mandate changed. The 2018 bill provided that commercial
manufacturers are no long required, aircraft manufactures are
no longer required to use PFAS chemicals in their fighting
foam. Can you, as you know, PFAS is extremely dangerous. Can
you please discuss when the FAA expects the final--to issue the
final regulations provision that exempts commercial airports
from using the toxic PFAS in firefighting?
Mr. Dickson. Well, thank you for the question. And there is
a lot of work going on in this particular area. In fact, we
opened up at our tech center in New Jersey, in January, we
opened up a new $5 million facility that is designed to do this
testing. And we are doing baseline testing of the existing
products out there now. And we are working very closely to do
this work with the Department of Defense which does the initial
certification. And a very similar product that we use for civil
aviation in airports.
So, we are in the process of determining what alternatives
are available out there. That will take some time. In the short
term, what we have done is we have made available airport
improvement grants for airports to be able to purchase with
that grant money equipment that when they are required to test
their firefighting equipment, it doesn't actually discharge
anything onto the ramp or onto the airport property. So, that
will mitigate many of the short term effects of what we see
because they will be able to keep all of that contained within
the unit. And that is a brand new capability.
Ms. Lawrence. So, my last question, I am glad you are
working on it. Do you have a timeline when we can expect that
you will be in compliance with eliminating PFAS from the
firefighting?
Mr. Dickson. It will take a while to do the research. At
this point, there has not been a substitute out there that has
the effectiveness in putting out an aircraft fire that we have
seen. So, it will take some time to conduct the research but we
will get back to you with a specific time. We are moving
forward though very aggressively on this point.
[Mr. Dickson responded for the record:]
Timeline for the Implementation of Section 332 of the
2018
Reauthorization Act
LAs of March 6, 2020 the FAA has completed
baseline fire testing with a military-spec (C6) aqueous film
forming foam.
LThe current project schedule has fire testing of
five commercially available Fluorine Free Foams (FFF) using
military-spec test protocol completed by the of June 2020.
LConcurrently, the FFF's will be tested for a
chemical make-up and properties by the end of June 2020.
LFrom July 2020 until December 2020 the FAA plans
to test non-commercially available foams for both fire tests
and chemical tests.
LConcurrently, we will perform ICAO level C fire
testing of the five commercially available FFF's and any non-
commercially available foams.
LThe final research report is expected to be
provided to the FAA Office of Airports by April 2021.
Ms. Lawrence. Thank you and I yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Mr. Womack.
Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you
Administrator Dickson for your testimony here today and your
service to the country. I don't know if Ms. Lawrence was
referring to the section in the Reauthorization Act of 2018,
section 625 on the $10 million that was authorized for
primarily pilots and maintainers. This is an education process.
But what are you doing to implement because it has been fully
funded. What are you doing to implement that?
Mr. Dickson. Yes, sir. $5 million each. As you noted, $5
million for pilots and $5 million for maintenance technicians.
We are in the process of working through I believe those funds
became available in December and we are working through the
process right now.
We expect to have the grant applications out there within
the next few months. And it will, that will all take place this
year to get those programs up and running.
Mr. Womack. When Secretary Chao was here a couple of weeks
ago, I asked her about contract towers. I am going to ask you
basically the same question. Of course, I have got a parochial
interest because I have got several contract towers in the
State of Arkansas, certainly 4 of them are in my district.
Can you comment briefly as to where you see this contract
tower program going? Which I consider to be a pretty good
partnership that the FAA has that helps to ensure safety.
Mr. Dickson. Yes, Congressman, thank you for the question.
Contract towers are an extremely important part of our aviation
infrastructure, particularly when it comes to airports in
smaller communities, making sure that we've got the appropriate
margin of safety there.
I believe we've have currently approximately 250 contract
towers and we are requesting funding for those operations of
$172 million.
We do have a benefit cost analysis process that we have to
go through to ensure that we are putting towers in the
locations where there will be enough traffic so that there is
as safety benefit. But we will, I see us continuing to support
the contract tower program.
Mr. Womack. I don't want to get too down into the weeds on
the benefit cost analysis but when that happens, is that a
snapshot of a like a certain period of time in a given day that
may or may not reflect the ongoing need?
Mr. Dickson. My understanding is the benefit cost analysis
is, uses a 2018 baseline and there is a tenth of a point
increase that was put into the authorizing legislation that
allows us to essentially if it's a close call to put a
particular airport over the bar.
Mr. Womack. I see. I got a, in my remaining time, I got a
couple of questions about the Max program, and you may have
covered this in your opening and I got here a little bit late.
As you look at our current aircraft certification system,
do you see any changes on the horizon that would make to ensure
a more sound safety regulatory system?
Mr. Dickson. Well, the short answer is yes. Essentially we
have a number of recommendations from various reviews that have
been done, all of which have a slightly different perspective
and those are all very helpful.
They, it really comes down to addressing three particular
issue and that is making the oversight process more holistic
and more focused on system, the safety of the system as
designed, rather than complying with individual rules which is
you would hope that those rules would look that together, would
provide the level of safety and they have over the years that
we want.
But I think we are in a world now where we really need to
look at the interdependencies in a more sophisticated way that
we have had to in the past.
We also need to introduce human factors considerations into
design. It has been a part of the design criteria before but
that needs to be more integrated.
And we also need to develop safety management systems which
will actually allow us to oversee the manufacturing process
much more effectively because it requires data and
communication that doesn't necessarily exist in with the level
of detail that it needs to now.
Mr. Womack. Yeah. I am about to run out of time so I am
going to let you take these for the record. And that is on this
max reports that I have read that suggest that there may be a
rewiring of the entire 737 max requirement, I would like to
know a little bit more about that and what is driving the
potential need to do that.
But again, won't require you to go through that here today
because I am out of time and take that for the record. And, Mr.
Chairman, thank you for the time and I yield back.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Ms. Torres.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Dickson for being here.
For the past 20 years, the FAA air traffic controllers and
technicians have relied upon the integrated control and
monitoring systems to monitor and control all critical
electronic systems operating the 16 major airports in the U.S.
Yet, despite pleas from members of Congress on both sides of
the aisle, and from air traffic controllers to refresh the
software of these systems, which is long overdue, the FAA has
refused to act.
I would like to point out that this committee in the fiscal
year 2020 funding bill, included language highlighting this
very issue as it would impact air traffic operations in the
traveling public, it is my understanding at the FAA has still
not acted to refresh the system.
Could you please explain why this is the case and if, you
know, what you plan, what the status report is?
Mr. Dickson. Thank you for the question. The systems that
you're referring to actually don't monitor all of the critical
systems, they monitor specifically the navigational aids around
the airport.
Mrs. Torres. Which is critical.
Mr. Dickson. Absolutely. And so we are, we continually
along with all of our technology we will continually evaluate
what the risk is of doing or not doing a tech refresh. And this
is an area that we are currently evaluating and we will address
moving forward.
Mrs. Torres. The technology is ancient technology and it
continues to age and the refreshment part of it is, you know,
soon not going to be a reliable source for pilots to utilize or
air traffic controllers to utilize. So, you know, I hope that
you would see the urgency to this.
It is also my understanding that FAA is in the process of
evaluating the implementation of the National Aerospace System,
NASS, program designed to enhance NAVID Vis Aids control and
monitoring capabilities in air traffic control towers.
And the FAA is considering either expanding the use of the
integrated control and monitoring systems, a system designed
and manufactured by a minority owned small business group from
southern California, or upgrading and expanding the universal
interlock control, a system that is designed and manufactured
by the FAA in competition with a minority owned firm in
southern California.
Can you clarify for me whether or not the FAA has been in
competition with any private company regarding the UIC NAV aid
or VIS aids monitoring efforts?
Mr. Dickson. Well, thank you for the question, ma'am. The
UIC capability that you spoke about, my understanding is that
was undertaken in 2009 at some airports that did not have the
system that you're talking about. And it's even more narrowly
focused.
We will review our acquisition protocols to make sure that
we comport with the acquisition guidelines in terms of the
competition issues that you raised.
Mrs. Torres. So as you respond to me, I hope that you would
justify why this is taking place given that OMB guidelines are
prohibiting that you are in direct competition with small
minority businesses.
Secondary, Administrator, as you know, Congress included in
the last FAA bill a strong, clear, and legally binding mandate
that the FAA require all new aircraft to have secondary
barriers starting in October of 2019.
This is a safety and security mandate that dates back to 9/
11. And that Congress could not be any more clearer, a direct,
you know, clear and direct about this.
You are now past due and have full legal authority to
implement this requirement today. Just as you did last October
when you were supposed to issue this order but instead you have
created a working group to study the issue further delaying
this much needed safety enhancement. When do you intend to
comply with the law?
Mr. Dickson. Well, ma'am, we are moving forward on this
issue. It is a very high priority for me. We are moving forward
on this issue as quickly as we can. They converse on a regular
basis.
Mrs. Torres. How often does the study group meet?
Quarterly, monthly, weekly, daily?
Mr. Dickson. In person, I would have to get you the
schedule. I know that we are expecting a report from them later
this month and that will give us the technical details that we
need to provide the manufacturing, the manufacturer's
guidelines that we can actually enforce. And that's what has
been missing.
[Mr. Dickson responded for the record:]
Flightdeck Secondary Barrier Working Group
Schedule
LSeptember 5, 2019: Working Group formed
LOctober 3, 2019: Initial Teleconference of the
Working Group
LNovember 4, 2019: Sub-working Groups formed &
Sub-working Group Leads/members notified
LNovember 4-12, 2019: Sub-working Group activities
lead by the sub-working group leads
LNovember 13-14, 2019: First face-to-face meeting
(Washington, DC)
LNovember 29, 2019: Teleconference with FAA Office
of Budget Costing
LDecember 20, 2019: Report writing subgroups
provide first draft
LJanuary 21-23, 2020: Second face-to-face meeting
to review draft report (Tysons, VA)
LJanuary 31, 2020: All recommendations formalized
LFebruary 20, 2020: Final report submitted for TAE
comment
LFebruary 25, 2020: TAE call for review draft of
final report
LFebruary 27, 2020: Final report with TAE comments
incorporated submitted
LMarch 19, 2020: Presented final report to ARAC
Mrs. Torres. My time has expired, sir. But I hope that I am
being very, very clear to you that these are critical safety
measures for the flying public and that we expect you to follow
the law.
Mr. Dickson. I understand.
Mrs. Torres. I yield back.
Mr. Price. Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
joining us today. First, I want to also thank you for your
support of the Aviation Sustainability Center known as ASCENT.
It has brought researchers at Boston University, MIT, and
others together to quantify the impacts of air quality in
affected communities. We look forward to our ongoing
partnership.
I want to ask you also about in the fiscal year 2018 THUD
report, this committee directed the FAA to report back on sound
installation, installed prior to 2007. And examine the
effective lifespan of mitigation treatments and make
recommendations.
This report was released last year and in addition, MASS
port, the Massachusetts Port Authority sent a letter to you at
the end of January regarding the retreatment of homes that were
sound insulated during the early years of the sound proofing
program.
FAA's current policy does not allow for retreatment of
homes. What is your plan for replacing the equipment that has
lost its effectiveness? I know the FAA has acknowledge that
current window and door treatment are far more effective and
durable and are you open to revisiting this policy so
homeowners can take advantage of those efficiencies?
Mr. Dickson. Well, thank you for the question. And the
short answer is yes. The standards for insulation were actually
established in 1993, although there had been work--that type of
reimbursement occurred prior to that. At this point, our
research has not shown or indicated that there is any
deterioration in those measures.
But, because of the fact that there were no standards
established prior 1993, we are looking very seriously at
allowing AIP funds to be used. Now the airport that's
requesting the funds would have to essentially prioritize that
with other safety and efficiency projects that they have along
with noise issues in the adjacent local communities.
But it is something that we are looking at very closely and
we will certainly be happy to work with you on that.
Ms. Clark. So when you say you are looking at it very
closely, does that mean you are changing the policy or you are
still examining it?
Mr. Dickson. We are in active discussions to change the
policy. But to my knowledge, as of sitting here today, I can't
tell you that it has changed but we are in active discussions
to do that.
Ms. Clark. Do you have any sort of timeline on a final
decision?
Mr. Dickson. I would have to get back to you the specifics
but it is, it would be in the very short term.
Ms. Clark. OK. We will look forward to a very short term
answer because I think there are homeowners, not only in my
district, but across the country that really need to be able to
update the sound proofing that has been offered.
Mr. Dickson. I understand.
Ms. Clark. I would also like to talk about in light of the
Boeing 737 crashes sometime on your human capital needs to
ensure that there is an adequate level of oversight in both
aircraft certification and flight standards, particularly for
companies like Boeing that have organization designation
authorization. Which basically means they are allowed to self
inspect and regulate, is that right? Is that a fair
characterization?
Mr. Dickson. I would not use the term self-inspection or
regulation. The FAA is required to oversee those processes and
an ODA is a privilege. They have a very high level of
responsibility in terms of producing safe products and that
process has, that delegation process has produced safe products
for many decades but as with any process as we have said, it
can certainly be improved.
And I think the FAA's ability to oversee the process
currently has areas that need to be improved and that is what
you're seeing in our budget request.
Ms. Clark. And is that a part of the additional staffing is
to help you in this area?
Mr. Dickson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Clark. OK. And could you continue to update us on the
status of hiring the new technical employees and the type of
capacities that these employees are going to fulfill?
Mr. Dickson. Of course. In the current year, we are in the
process of recruiting and hiring additional human factors
experts. And also, software engineers, systems engineers, those
who have the capability, technicians to or specialists to
perform system integrated system safety assessments.
All of those are areas that will improve the level of
sophistication of the FAA's oversight. And in addition, on the
fiscal year 2021 budget request, we are asking to add an
additional 50 on top of the 34 that we will bring on this year
and then an additional 13 for our ODA office that was stood up
from the 2018 reauthorization.
Ms. Clark. Thank you.
Mr. Price. Mr. Hurd.
Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator, it is
good to have you here, you have had an interesting year. I know
we talked a bit bit about COVID-19 already. Can you take 30
seconds and just describe FAA's role in dealing with COVID-19
and maybe larger scale crises like this?
Mr. Dickson. Yes, Congressman. Thanks for the question. The
FAA has been involved from the very beginning. Of course, we
are a part of the Department of Transportation which is
actually on the President's task force and we have been
supporting, acting as really an honest broker between the
Federal Government and all elements of the aviation industry,
whether it's airlines or airports or crew members and
passengers.
And so we have been making sure that when we have been in a
containment posture up to this point, that we are putting--
helping to put processes in place for passenger screening and
contact tracing when that's warranted and essentially
supporting the CDC's efforts.
Within the FAA itself, we have, for the last 8 weeks or so
we have essentially had three lines of effort. The first line
of effort is our internal coordination. It's a process that we
use for hurricanes and other contingencies that happen. That
group has been stood up and operating continuously since about
the middle of January.
We have also been working as part of the interagency
process which I just discussed. And then about three to four
weeks ago, we began to pivot to attention to our own operations
plans in terms of mission assurance because we need to be able
to continue to take care of our own people and manage the air
traffic control operations as well as enable our safety,
aviation safety inspectors and technicians to be able to make
sure the system continues to run.
Mr. Hurd. Right now today, how do you characterize
traveling by air?
Mr. Dickson. I would say that as I mentioned in response to
the chairman's question earlier, that the considerations that
the CDC has put out in terms of those who are at risk or and
should look at large gatherings or traveling on long flights.
But other than that, there aren't any significant
restrictions or considerations beyond what we would have in any
work place or public gathering.
Mr. Hurd. Sure. Got you. I represent San Antonio. I am one
of the five that represent San Antonio. Lackland Air Force Base
is there, HHS is involved in taking folks from the, excuse me,
the Grand Princess cruise ship to Lackland Air Force Base.
Would you agree hat in the interest of public safety, those
chartered flights that HHS is doing, having them land directly
on a military facility like Lackland would be the preferred
route or the preferred practice?
Mr. Dickson. I believe that's pretty much been the
practice. The repatriation flights and these repositioning
flights are actually either State aircraft or public aircraft
operations under the State Department. And they have to comport
with since they're flying in the civil aviation system, they
have to comport with the FAA's regulations.
But in terms of passenger facilitation and management,
that's really is the responsibility of HHS, CDC and CBP. And my
observations up to this point is they are managing that process
appropriately to make sure that there is no elevated risk of
any transmission.
Mr. Hurd. Good copy. Switching to a new topic, unmanned
aerial systems. The budget has $144 million in it for this
program and $2 million for working with law enforcement
partners on counter UAS and protection at these airports. Is
that enough?
Mr. Dickson. I would say it is a continuing, developing
challenge for our aviation system. But I believe that our
request for this coming fiscal year is enough to do the
research that we need to do to continue to improve our
capabilities in these areas.
The FAA's primary emphasis here in working with our law
enforcement partners and airports primarily, is to ensure that
we deal with unauthorized, clueless, and careless, and then
also anyone who wants to do harm that we actually have the
rulemaking and the detection processes in place to be able to
address those issues. That's where our focus is.
Mr. Hurd. And in your--in my final 30 seconds, your opening
remarks, you talked about how the, excuse me, the low altitude
authorization and notification capability was a success story
in automation and partnership with industry and government.
Why?
Mr. Dickson. That's a great question. I think what it has
done is that it has provided the foundation for which we will
be able to build an unmanned traffic management system with the
private sector to be able to deconflict UAS from each other as
we continue to integrate them in our system.
Our strategy really is to integrate UAS in the coming years
rather than segregate them to specific geographic areas or
routes and LAANC is really the first capability where we are
seeing the ability to be able to begin to manage what that
process could look like in the coming years.
Mr. Price. Mr. Quigley.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, sir, for
being here. In 2015, OBM greenlighted a study, the DNL on my
urging to reexamine day night level metric use to measure
aircraft noise pollution. May 2018, the FAA said it is really
close and since that time it has been delayed 22 months.
We have heard from multiple sources that it was delayed
because of methodology issues. Is that true? Is the study
close? Were there issues with how it was conducted?
Mr. Dickson. So thanks for the question. DNL currently as
you know, is the only metric that we have that takes into
account all of the criteria in terms of measuring the impact of
noise on our communities.
And we continue to do research on what other methodology--
methodologies would capture time and place and duration as
well. And so far there hasn't been anything that has replicated
that.
If you're referring to the noise annoyance study which is,
that is due out in October, and we expect to meet that
deadline.
Mr. Quigley. Were you aware of any problems with the
methodology in the study?
Mr. Dickson. I'm not personally aware.
Mr. Quigley. Could you find out and let this committee
know?
Mr. Dickson. Absolutely.
[Mr. Dickson responded for the record:]
The FAA is confident in the rigor and methodology used to
conduct this study and will publish the study consistent with
section 187 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2019.
Mr. Quigley. Ask them, I have problems with the word
annoyance because as you know these public health studies are
talking about far more than annoyance, they are talking about
real public health risk. I certainly appreciate that. And I
hope we are talking about the same study.
Second, this past summer, the FAA worked with local
authorities in New York to adjust flight patterns and
procedures to help limit noise around JFK. But in a letter to
the Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus, the Administrator
Dickson, you stated that FAA's review process for these changes
has been quote irregular and had serious flaws in it including
not consulting with the JFK tower.
Obviously those are big red flags and it is good that they
were caught, but why is it that internal communication at the
FAA let this happen? That the agency can agree to significant
changes in flight operations and then go back on it, really on
what it said it was going to do, when it realizes its own
integral procedures were violated.
Mr. Dickson. Well, it's a great question, thanks for the
opportunity to respond. It's really important that when we look
at noise issues, that we realize that it's an entire community
issue and we want to make sure that the entire community is
engaged and that we are not just moving noise arbitrarily
between one community and an adjacent community for example.
This inquiry was made to the approach control which did not
consult with the tower. This is why it's really important, as I
mentioned to Congressman Diaz-Balart, that we work through the
regional administrator to make sure that we can bring these
issues forward and have them addressed on a holistic basis,
rather than just to solve one issue.
I will say that the altitude request for operating above
3,000 feet on the arrivals, that actually was executed and was
part of my response to the inquiry from the caucus----
Mr. Quigley. Sir, is it safe to say that the problems that
took place here won't be replicated, that working in around
O'Hare and other airports we are not going to have these same
issues?
Mr. Dickson. We will not as long as we are able to
understand that the appropriate point for us to engage with you
and your staffs is through the regional administrator, then we
will be able to make sure that that process is appropriately
managed.
Mr. Quigley. Sir, my friend and colleague, Mr. Swayze is
interested as his constituents are as to this correction has
been made as to how it was moved forward.
Now how long might they have to wait to find out what if
any other corrective measures can be taken to adjust to the
noise?
Mr. Dickson. Well, as I said, the altitude portion has
already been addressed. The runway usage again, that's
something that we would have to work through the New York
roundtable to make sure that we are not changing----
Mr. Quigley. Is that process going on? We can report back
to the Congressman that it is being worked on soon?
Mr. Dickson. Yes.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you.
Mr. Price. Mr. Administrator, I want to return to the
safety lessons from the 737 max disasters, matters raised by
Mr. Womack and Ms. Clark and others. I want to drill down a bit
on 2 aspects of this and I'll ask both questions at once.
First, has to do with the manufacturer's role in the ODA
process. There is some of course, widespread misgivings about
that process but having said that, the FAA does not have the
capacity to inspect every aspect of every plane in U.S.
aviation.
So if ODA is necessary at some level, how can you improve
it? That is the big question. How can the FAA ensure that the
ODA employees are acting in the best interest of the FAA and
not their employer.
What could the FAA do to protect ODA employees from undue
pressures? And then perhaps most importantly, what can you do
to ensure that the same culture of safety that you aspire to at
the FAA permeates this process? I know that is difficult, but
that is important.
Second, having to do with the human factors. The
investigations into the FAA certification process have
identified that the FAA made some incorrect assumptions about
pilot responses and that the agency needs to integrate human
factor analysis into the certification process more
effectively. Of course, you have a myriad of circulars, orders,
notices, related to human factors that date back to the 1990's.
So what are we to conclude? That you haven't been
successful in following your own guidance or that the guidance
is unenforceable or that the guidance needs to be revised? I
mean, can you update us on this?
And then, and this particularly came out in the oversight
hearing we held in this subcommittee some months ago. What
about the variation of experiences of foreign pilots and
mechanics? The international aspect of this. Are you modifying
or do you need to modify that guidance when you consider the
variants of international experiences?
Mr. Dickson. Well, thank you, I'll try to address those in
sequence. With respect to, I think the first issue, I would
just put it under the broad topic of how do we manage and make
sure that there is not undue pressure or conflict of interest
in the, among the ODA members.
And with any manufacturing process, any private company,
even an airline, there are always going to be mission
pressures, you know, a captain wanting to get the airplane to
its destination on time. In this case getting a design project
completed.
There are going to be schedule pressures that the safety
process need to be able to stay intact and be of primacy but
also, the leadership, both at the FAA and at the manufacturer
need to make sure that they continuously message and are
listening for indications that that may not be the case.
And for example, you know, when I was leading my pilots at
the airline, I always told them, you know, sometimes you're
your own worst enemy. You know, you really want to get your
customers to their destination, but don't ever hesitate if
you've got any concern at all to pull off to the side of the
taxiway, let's set the parking brake and get everything sorted
out. That's always going to trump being on time and being
efficient if you need to.
The same is true in the manufacturing sector. And there are
some structural things that some companies have done that I
think are best practices in terms of separating the safety
chain from the manufacturing chain to make sure that quality
and safety is emphasized throughout the process.
We also need to recognize there is a lot of flexibility in
the ODA system where it really is a privilege for a company to
have ODA as a program. And I think it is a more effective way
for the FAA to manage a manufacturing process, rather than
trying to manage individual designees but the process has to be
robust, and it has to have safety as its primary consideration.
And I think some of the resources that we are asking for in
terms of system safety analysis and effective oversight tools,
I have a big emphasis at the agency on data and the ability to
be able to look at the data as the project is proceeding for
the FAA is going to be extremely important in this process.
Mr. Price. Thank you. I am going to ask you to defer the
answer on the human factors. I do want to hear that, defer that
though until the next round since my time has expired. Mr.
Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you Mr. Chairman. In the same vein,
Administrator, I would like to first thank you for putting the
safety first as to the review of the max. We know that you
won't certify this aircraft until you are certain that it is
safe.
I guess I read or heard that you personally are going to
fly the airplane before it is certified. Is that correct?
Mr. Dickson. That's correct.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. So all indications that I hear are that
you are making good progress on the review and that obviously
we look forward to the day that that airplane can safely return
to our airspace.
Would you give us a sense how thorough your review has been
and what steps still remain before the plane can be
recertified?
Mr. Dickson. I would say that that is the most thorough
review that any airplane has ever had throughout the history of
aviation. And that we are leaving no stone unturned and we
have, we have essentially reallocated resources within the
agency to make sure that we have the resources to continue to
make sure that every step of the process is followed.
The next major milestone is the certification flight and we
have, there were a number of--several software changes that
were recently made to address some issues that had come up and
it remains to be seen whether we have to reaccomplish the audit
associated with those changes.
But after that work is completed then we will, that will
lead us to the certification flight. It's impossible to say
exactly when that will occur but when it does, we will then
take some time, a matter of a few days I think to review the
data from the certification flight and then that will enable us
to bring in the 16 airline pilots, both U.S. and international
pilots of various experience levels to complete the training
that Boeing has recommended which includes simulator modules as
well.
My deputy administrator is going to complete that training
alongside that process and then once this process is completed
I will complete the training and then conduct a certification
flight.
In parallel with those training requirements, there are
some technical steps that have to be taken to make sure the
airplanes have all the upgrades and maintenance work completed
on them. And then there will be an airworthiness directive and
the ungrounding order after that.
Subsequent to the ungrounding, then we will--also the
certificate management offices in the U.S. will then work with
their individual airlines that they oversee to approve their
specific training programs for their operations.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. All right. There have been several studies
and investigations of the certification of the max, of the
process both from inside and outside of the FAA.
Can you just talk about some of the findings in those
reviews, particularly those findings that may be critical to
the FAA's role.
Mr. Dickson. That's a great question. We have had the Joint
Authorities's Technical Review, we have had the Technical
Advisory Board which we are specifically paying attention to
with respect to the Max itself. The Secretary's Special
Committee on Aircraft Certification. The National
Transportation Safety Board recommendations. We have the
accident investigations from the two accidents and we also have
Congressional investigations as well.
All of those have resulted and will result in a number of
recommendations but they're generally falling along the themes
that I mentioned earlier, the three themes that I mentioned in
my opening statement.
Having said that, we don't want to lose the granularity of
the individual recommendations so we are mapping them together.
They intend to--in many cases get at the same issues, utilizing
slightly different wording or maybe a little different
emphasis.
And remember, we are talking about a process that isn't
specific to Boeing, we are talking about 79 ODA's around the
country that we need to have a process that we will be able
support.
And so the funding that we are asking for in terms of the
improvements to aviation safety and safety systems, will enable
us to move along the path towards meeting those
recommendations.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Clark. I switched up on you. Thank you so much. Just
briefly, when I was a law student I got to take part in a case
against Morton-Thiokol, looking at how the O rings had been
developed in the shuttle disaster, a preventable disaster. And
it really was pressure to meet contract, to raise the bottom
line that did it.
With the coronavirus, the airline industry, airline
manufacturers are going to be under increasing stress. And I
just want to implore you as the FAA I know that you are
committed to this, but you are what stands between protecting
passengers, their families, the networks that love them and
support them and a race for a bottom line that can cause
disaster in the air.
So we appreciate what you are doing and just feel that role
of protecting safety is always foremost for the FAA, but it is
going to be challenged in new ways.
I want to go back to a specifically a question that the
chairman asked about the investigations into the certification
process where the FAA made incorrect assumptions about pilot
responses and needing to integrate the human factor analysis
into the aircraft certification process.
The FAA has a myriad of circulars, orders, and notices
relating to human factors analysis dating back to the 1990s. Is
the FAA not following its own guidance or is the guidance
unenforceable?
Mr. Dickson. Well, thank you for the question. First of
all, with respect to the, your first point, that's absolutely
our focus to make sure that we have the highest margin of
safety in the system and the--we have processes for--in place
of increased surveillance on areas where--that we think might
be under stress if that proves to be necessary financially.
With respect to we have a number of advisory circulars and
guidance material that some of it dates to the 90's but there
have been more recent with respect to flight deck architecture
considerations that have been developed and we use. Some of the
assumptions about human performance are not only what we use in
the U.S. but they are what other authorities, other states have
designed have used and they are essentially globally accepted
criteria.
And, I think, one of the benefits that we have and I think
it has been a strength of the United States going through this
process is our openness and transparency and our willingness to
accept critique throughout this process. It will make the
process stronger.
And I would expect that working with the other states of
design, primarily the Europeans, the Canadians and the
Brazilians, our coordination, our cooperation is really
stronger than ever. And we will be looking at all of these
elements in terms of human factors and things like the Change
of Product Rule and what those improvements will look like
going forward.
Ms. Clark. Do you anticipate you will be modifying your
guidance to consider the variance of experience of foreign
pilots?
Mr. Dickson. Well, I think you can see that we are already
taking actions. We are not waiting to rewrite guidance. The
fact that we are including, I mentioned the joint operations
review that is going to evaluate the training proposal from
Boeing. This is the first time that any authority has used
line, airline pilots from various international countries. We
have used pilots from other aviation authorities but never
pilots from various experience levels to complete a process to
validate a training proposal.
Ms. Clark. Great, thank you. On that note, with the sort of
global aviation using foreign pilots, do you think the ICAO is
still an effective body for globalizing aviation standards?
Mr. Dickson. Well, there is no organization in the world
that has done more to promote aviation safety than the FAA. And
one of the ways we do that, but not the only way, is through
ICAO. The ICAO process can take some time, as you noted, but we
have to be there because that is how we can exercise influence
globally.
The FAA devotes a number of people and quite a bit of
attention to what is going on at ICAO. But in addition to that,
we work bilaterally with many authorities. We also work
regionally in areas where it makes sense.
Most recently, I was out at the Singapore air show, for
example, and worked with five of the aviation authorities in
South Asia on exactly the issues that you are talking about
with respect to pilot training and qualification. So, we will
continue to take a multifaceted approach.
Ms. Clark. Thank you. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Actually, on
that note, how do we--how do I say this kindly? I want to be
diplomatic about this. But look, other certifying international
agencies have, may have potentially, and I am thinking about
China, for example, you know, may not be as transparent as the
FAA as to what their--how do you make sure that political
reasons, because they may have ties with manufacturers or
whatever are not--don't come between the certification of the
MACs? Not for safety reasons but because of other reasons. So,
I am trying to be diplomatic but I think you know what I am
saying here.
Mr. Dickson. Sure. Well obviously, the you know, again,
these airplanes will be operated around the world as are many
U.S. produced products. And so, that is why it is very
important that I think the FAA takes a leadership role as the
most influential in really many would say the gold standard for
aviation safety in the world.
That may look a little different now than it might have 20
or 25 years ago because there are other competent authorities
out there that we can work with and that have very
sophisticated capabilities themselves. So, that is an answer to
Congresswoman Clark's question, it really is a situation where
yes, we work through ICAO but we also work in a different way
depending on what the aviation authorities are. Whether it is
China or EASA or Singapore, whoever it is. That engagement and
that level of assistance and mentoring may look a little bit
different.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Let me change subjects entirely. In
December, I joined my two Florida Senators raising concern
with, at Miami International Airport. I don't know if you are
aware of this, regarding the potential purchase of the
passenger boarding bridges from a Chinese state backed
enterprise.
Now, this subcommittee started through, I think it was
actually Congresswoman Granger who started showing concern
about, for example, Chinese involvement in rolling stock,
Chinese state enterprise in rolling stock. And the NDAA, that
was actually, there was a halt put to that in a bipartisan way
on that, on rolling stock.
So, I have been concerned with the anti-competitive nature
of bids from these stated controlled, state run or tied with
state enterprises in China dealing with, again, these, I don't
know what you call these things. The, you know, the, I guess
the boarding bridges, passenger boarding bridges.
And so, the concern is not only the anti-competitive nature
but the fact that it could potentially pose a security threat.
Because these companies then could be used to potentially
exploit our aviation and national security network. So again,
it is also a national Security issue.
I just, I just want to make sure you are familiar with that
and a lot of those funds are not federal funds, I get that. But
I just want, Mr. Administrator, I just wanted to kind of put it
on your front burner to make sure that the FAA does whatever we
can, it can so that Federal funds are not used to support these
Chinese backed companies which is, again, I think anti-
competitive but also a national security issue.
So, I am not asking for an answer but I just wanted to make
sure that you are aware of that and that I can't speak for
anybody else but there was very strong bipartisan concern about
rolling stock. I think this is even more dangerous. So, I just
want to put it on your radar.
Mr. Dickson. Understand and there are Buy American
requirements for AIP funds which would certainly be looked at
if Federal money was used for these systems. And also, with
respect to cyber-security in particular, that is something that
we are focused on. We work very closely with Homeland Security
and DoD as part of the aviation cyber initiative.
We are also requesting an additional $13 million to make
our own systems more robust and also ensure that the aviation
system is appropriately protected.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And I appreciate that. I just want to make
sure, Administrator, that the passenger boarding bridges
doesn't, bad pun, fly under the radar. But with that, that is
all I have. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Clark. Thank you. I have to remember to hit that
button. But we do truly thank you for your time today. And the
Committee staff will be in contact with your staff regarding
any questions for the record. If you would please return the
information for the record to the Committee within 30 days from
next Wednesday, we will be able to publish the transcript of
today's hearings. With that, Mr. Diaz-Balart, any final
comments?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. No, thank you.
Ms. Clark. With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]