coming up tonight on c-span3, transportation secretary e-lan chao testifies on the trump administration's infrastructure policy. then the nation's top state education officials on equitable education opportunities and k-12 priorities in the states. later, the debate between the candidates in pennsylvania's 18th congressional district race. transportation secretary elaine chao testified on the trump administration's infrastructure agenda and confirmed that the president asked speaker paul ryan to block

funding for the multibillion dollar hudson river rail tunnel project in the new york metro region. this hearing of the house transportation and infrastructure committee is three hours and 15 minutes. >> the committee will come to order. i ask that members take their seats. again, the committee will come to order. without objection, the chair has authorized to declare a recess at any time, although i don't believe we're going to have votes until this afternoon, so i don't think that will be a problem, but we welcome and thank secretary chao for testifying today on the administration's infrastructure proposal. welcome, secretary chao.

i've been encouraged by the president's focus on infrastructure since before the election and through his inauguration when i believe he became the first president in our history to mention the word infrastructure in his inaugural address. although i do believe along the way lincoln called them internal improvements. so, again, infrastructure, internal improvements have always been part of the federal government's role, and actually that's why we have emblazened over the two doors talking about the need of the duty of the sovereign or the government -- one of the three things is the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and public institutions that can never be in the interest of any individual. erect and maintain. so, again, adam smith even said it. of course, our founders that were students of adam smith talked about and put in the constitution congress' main three roles, defense of the

general welfare, regulate commerce and to accomplish post offices and post roads. article i section viii. from the founding of this country, there has been a federal role at all levels of government. it's not just the federal government, but we certainly need to continue to participate to make sure we continue to have a robust national transportation system. over the past year, though, state support for increasing investment in america's infrastructure has been positive. and the president's interest, his background as a builder and his leadership on the issue will be crucial to building 21st century infrastructure for america. i look forward to working with you, madam secretary, as we move forward this year. some of the administration's infrastructure proposals are much-needed. i have questions about some of the other proposals and how they'll work. for example, i want to commend you for work -- you and the d.o.t. have done in speeding up projects. we now have between the m.a.p. act -- map 21 and the f.a.s.t.

act, about 350% of those streamlining proposals have been put in place. there is still more on permitting that we need to do to get this permitting process down to a reasonable number of years. the last two highway bills, as i said, had those types of reforms in it. there is nor to do to fully enact those. still, it takes too long for projects to move forward. on average, it's about 14 years for a major road project to move forward. that's just way too long. to cut that in half, the president's been talking about two years, which would be fantastic, but if you cut that 14 in half, just on -- excuse me, on inflation alone, you would save somewhere between 12% and 15% on a project and that over time adds up to real, real dollars. i've said many times before, infrastructure plan must be a bipartisan plan if it's going to pass congress. the senate rules with the 60 votes, it has to be bipartisan there, and i'm sure in the house

if we're to do a bipartisan bill, we need to bring our democratic colleagues on board and work closely with them to produce something that will pass through the house in a bipartisan -- on a bipartisan vote. we're working with and plan to work with the ranking member and my democratic colleagues to develop a plan that does attract bipartisan support. to do that we have to be realistic about our needs and how we can address them in a fiscally responsible way. fixing the highway trust fund for the future and modern easing how we fund infrastructure in this country must be part of the solution. in fact, that has to be really the starting point. if we don't figure out how to fix the trust fund, october 20, into early '21, the trust fund will run out. if you look across the country, 31 states have already dealt with their shortfalls in revenue and there's been no political price for fixing their revenue. they did it in very different ways and it has been states with

democratic legislatures and governors, states, my home state of pennsylvania, the republican house and senate and a republican governor, fixed their ability -- their funding -- the revenue shortfall. and, again, there was no political price to pay because i think the american people understand the need we have to invest in our infrastructure. so i look forward to continuing working with you at the white house and my colleagues in congress on a bipartisan infrastructure plan. so with that, i recognize vice ranking member of the committee, ms.esties, for the opening statement. >> plane delayed. >> if we would have only passed my ffa reauthorization, he would be here. >> tell us more. tell us more. >> i believe it was cancelled, not delayed. thank you, chairman schuster, and thank you secretary chao for joining us here today.

we are now over 400 days into the trump administration. far past the 100-day mark, a period during which the president promised to enact a bill to invest $1 billion in infrastructure. after a lot of talk, the white house finally released its long-awaited infrastructure plan three weeks ago. sadly, my frustration over the long delay and getting to see the white house plan has now been eclipsed by my frustration over what is actually in it. how we structure an infrastructure package and how we pay for it matters a lot. if an infrastructure package is to bring together successfully, it must be based on a mutual understanding that we need real sustainable investment to improve the productivity and mobility of our communities. we can't do it based on gimmicks, shifting responsibility among partners or glossing over years of underinvestment. we need sound long-term investment at the federal level that will create millions of

jobs, boost local economies and pay dividends for generations to come. let me elaborate. number one, an investment package must contain real federal funding, and i'm glad that the chairman mentioned the importance of actual funding for these programs. an investment of $1 trillion in federal infrastructure funding will create or sustain 16 million jobs. and those are well-paid jobs. instead, the president's promised $1 trillion has turned out to be only $200 billion over ten years. over a broad swath of infrastructure needs, that's $20 billion a year to cover all modes of transportation, broadband, waste water, drinking water as well as veteran and gsa facilities. and let's be clear, this $200 billion in, quote, additional money is proposed in the broader context of $168 billion in cuts. to existing transportation, transit and infrastructure

funding over the same ten-year period. so in reality, the president is proposing very little, if any, new federal money. the white house envisions that the new money they can take credit for, as presidentially-led investments will come from the state and local level, bying to and taxing citizens more or bonding to be paid off by future tax revenues. that is pushing the costs on to americans not yet born. congress and the white house missed a massive opportunity to raise revenue for infrastructure in the tax bill, which is mind-boggling because 250 members of congress with robust representation from both sides of the aisle wrote the leadership, the ways and means committee, urging that a permanent solution to our highway trust fund be included in that tax bill. and so we continue to spin our wheels on how to bridge the gap between nearly universal support for fixing our nation's infrastructure and our massive

funding needs. number two, selling off public assets is a cash grab not a solution. to bridge this gap, in part, the white house infrastructure plan contains several attempts to push a privatization agenda. this isn't the solution. there is universal bipartisan agreement, even among those in the private sector, that public-private partnerships, called p-3s will not solve our infrastructure crisis and will do nothing for the vast majority of surface transportation projects. and as the chairman already noted, we need look no further than the quotationed now pointed on the wall, painted there for all of us to look at every day for the role of the federal role in funding infrastructure. number three, we can't streamline our way out of underinvestment. let me address the favorite trojan horse in infrastructure, environmental streamlining. rolling back environmental protections will not save hundreds of billions of dollars.

the vast majority of projects, 90% of projects, are already exempt from full environmental review and proceed under a categorical exclusion. so-called c.e. only 4% of projects require the preparation of an environmental impact statement, the most detailed review document. for the surface tramgs projects that do undergo a review, the time for completion is less than four years. in the past decade, congress has passed extensive legislation to expedite environmental review. based on input from state d.o.t.s, timelines to complete various levels of environmental review have fallen significantly as a result. while there may still be legitimate policy changes, congress should consider to expedite project delivery, which i and many of my colleagues are open to hearing about, artificial deadlines and punitive actions are not the

answer. number four, let's work with what we have, existing federal programs. the white house talking points claim to want to give states and local governments more decision-making power, yet they have proposed to direct 80% of infrastructure funds, $160 billion of the $200 billion to grants or loans selected by the federal government. again, these programs are coupled with cuts to existing programs under which states and local governments currently select those projects. instead, congress can quickly and fairly direct infrastructure dollars to states and cities through existing infrastructure programs. doing so ensures that these investments result in projects that utilize iron -- american iron and steel by enforcing buy america protections. they support good-paying jobs for american families by maintaining prevailing wage and other worker protections and provide opportunities for diverse small businesses to participate. this will also ensure real

investment will be available immediately to spend on the projects state and local governments determine are the most worthy. ranking member defazio included a provision in the f.a.s.t. act to ensure if additional funding came in through the highway trust fund, congress will not have to take any further action to see those dollars put to good use right away. again, by utilizing the existing structure, each authorized highway and transit program will get a proportional plus-up. the clock is ticking. since president trump took office, time wasted by commuters, travellers and inefficient movement of goods has already cost the american economy more than $179 billion. if the president and the republican leadership in congress are serious about making infrastructure a priority, and finding new revenue to pay for it, then we have a unique opportunity to

make badly needed investments in our roads, bridges, transit systems, rail infrastructure, airports and ports that we have been the neglecting for decades. let's work together. let's seize this opportunity. let's make a real investment in america. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i would now like to welcome again the honorable e-klain chao, secretary of transportation, and i'd ask unanimous consent that our witness's full statement will be incl colluded with the record. without objection, so ordered. secretary chao, thank you for being here today and you are now recognized. >> thank you very much, chairman schuster, and even though ranking member defazio is not here, i want to also acknowledge him. members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. as you've heard, infrastructure is, indeed, the backbone of our country's economy. the most productive, flexible

and dynamic in the world. it's a key factor in productivity and our economic growth. and yet, as we've all heard and experienced, the challenges are everywhere. with respect to surface transportation, traffic congestion and delays cost delivers nearly $160 billion annually. about 1/4 of our nation's bridges are structurally deficient, which, by the way, does not mean that they are unsafe. when bridges are unsafe, we shut them down immediately. structurally deficient means we have to monitor them more closely on a more regular basis. more than 20% of our nation's roads are in poor condition. and the transportation needs of rural america, which account for a disproportionally high percentage of our nation's highw highway fatalities, have been ignored for too long. and that is why over the past

year amongst all the other agenda items which the administration has undertaken, 12 agencies have been supporting the president working hard on a comprehensive infrastructure framework. which the president announced as a priority in his 2018 state of the union address. transportation is one component. the initiative includes but is not limited to energy, drinking and waste water, broadband and veterans hospitals as well. it is designed to change how infrastructure is designed, built, financed and maintained in communities across the country. the goal of the president's proposal is to stimulate at least $1.5 trillion in infrastructure investment, which including a minimum of $200 billion in direct federal funding. the guiding guidelines and principles are, one, to use

federal dollars as seed money to incentivize nonfederal infrastructure investments. two, provide for the needs of rural america. three, streamline permitting to speed up project delivery. four, reduce unnecessary and overly burdensome regulations. in addition, a key element of the proposal is to empower decision-making at the state and local level. they know best the infrastructure needs of their communities. half of the new infrastructure funds will go towards incentivizing new state, local and private sector investments in infrastructure. a quarter of the federal funds will be dedicated to addressing rural infrastructure needs. as prioritized by state and local leaders. and as a former secretary of labor, i'm pleased to note that this plan also has a workforce

component, to help workers access the skills necessary to build these new projects. the department is also implementing the president's one federal decision mandate announced on august 15th, 2017. to help speed up the delivery of new infrastructure and reduce the cost of new buildings. in addition to permitting reform, the department is doing its part to grow the economy and create jobs through regulatory reform. costs associated with new d.o.t. regulations decreased by $312 million in 2017, and the department is on track to decrease these costs by at least $500 million in 2018. by incentivizing new investments in infrastructure, eliminating overly burdensome regulations, providing support for rural america and streamlining the

permitting process, the department is helping to improve our communities and people's quality of life and build a brighter future for all americans. some estimates put our country's infrastructure needs at approximately $4 trillion. the president's plan encourages the private sector to help in the building of our public infrastructure. for example, endowments and pension funds are interested in investments like public infrastructure, which have collateral that will not walk away. in addition, the private sector helps to allocate risk if a project is not successful, the private sector bears the first loss instead of the taxpayer. the department realizes and recognizes that different regions require different solutions. the private sector investments should not be disallowed and should be an allowable option where appropriate. the administration looks forward to working with all of you on what we hope will be a

bipartisan package to address these needs. thank you very much. >> thank you. in the spirit of bipartisanship, i'm going to start with my -- recognizing my democratic colleague to start the questioning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, again, secretary chao, for your long service to this country and for appearing before our committee today. according to the administration, and i think we have our graphic up, but we may need better glasses to read that, but i direct people's attention to what is now up on the screens. according to the administration, a key element of this infrastructure proposal is to empower decision-making at the state and local level because these are the officials who know best the infrastructure needs of their own communities. however, if we look at this chart, we'll see that 80% of the funding under this proposal goes to projects selected or approved by the administration, not by state and local government.

governors only get to allocate 20% of the funding, and the locals don't get to decide anything. secretary chao, can you explain how this squares with the vision of empowering state and local government when you look or -- if you can explain that dichotomy between -- >> we disagree with that chart, obviously. we feel that the local and state communities, the local and state communities and applicants will have a great deal of say. they will come up with the projects. they will decide who they want to work with. they'll decide what projects to prioritize. so it will be up to them. it will be a partnership. >> but ultimately the administration will be making selection for those projects, isn't that correct? >> well, the administration will be working on these projects as they do in the tiger grants, as they do in the infra grants. it's the same concept. >> i think most of us have found our experience with tiger grants

are governors are the ones who decide and prioritize those. with all due respect -- >> that's an issue with the congressmen and the governors then. >> secretary chao, the white house plan also provides limited federal dollars in order to incentivize nonfederal partners. we've had some discussion about that. you personally have called this a, quote, new paradigm in infrastructure investment, where the federal government takes a back seat and, frankly, i've got to tell you, i'm hearing this at the local level. i was just home in connecticut. they see this as pushing the problem down on to the state and local government. give the state and local government already provide the majority of funding for highway and transit projects, why does the administration want to put more of the burden on local governments? many of which are already strained. and those that are struggling economically that need this benefit most are also going to be hit really hard by this shift. >> well, the national highway system, you know, our roads and

bridges are actually very decentralized. 10% of the overall roads are owned by the federal government. they're called the interstate highway parts. the rest of the national highway is actually state and local. and then the rest of the roads and bridges are basically state and local. so the majority of the roads and bridges are actually locally owned. as mentioned, the federal government owns about 10% and we fund about 20%. >> although, again, i have three interstates, i'm just saying, in my district -- >> yeah. >> in my state, 91, 95 and 84, crossed by hundreds of thousands of americans traveling up and down the eastern seaboard every single day. and those do -- those are aging infrastructure. those of us in the chairman's district is like that, too, we have aging interstate highway systems and local and state authorities are not in a position to pay for the redo of

all of that, with all due respect. >> actually, i know those states -- those routes very well. having been -- spent my childhood in the new york area. so i think that what you're referring to is the whole issue of pay-fors. i think the good news is that everything is on the table and we look forward to working with congress on this. >> this came up last weekend, i met with state legislators, republicans and democrats, in my home state. they're concerned. they're saying if the federal government is rolling back its commitment on infrastructure and the states are going to have to come up with that money, that's less money they have to pay for precisely the roads and bridges that you have identified that are already paid for by local government and states. with all due respect, if there is left federal investment, because we're not talking about additional federal investment when there is a time of

additional need, if there is left federal investment, states and localities will disproportionally -- the chairman pointed out, we haven't been maintaining the federal infrastructure or the state and the federal government i would, with all due respect, i would suggest the federal government has a role in ensuring the federal investments are maintained. >> well, that is in your state and we do not agree it was a roll -- back. most of the federal road is actually quite limited. the beginning of our country's history, a lot of the infrastructure was done by the state and local and private sector. there has been no roll-back. the federal role was only confined to the interstate. there are many, many other roads and bridges and national highway systems that are not part of the federal roll. having said that, i acknowledge that pay-for is a big issue so we want to work with the congress on finding solutions to that. >> thank you. i think we're over time. >> thank the gentlelady.

let me start off with the pay-fors is critical. and we can argue back and forth about this, and we will, for the foreseeable future. unfortunately, also, we have to talk to the ways and means committee, but i think it's important to point out that, especially to my republican colleagues who many of your states -- two of my colleagues here from pennsylvania or three, our state in pennsylvania dealt with it, and the user fee we pay at the pump, it is a user fee. we've continued to call it a tax, but technically it is a user fee. if you don't use the roads, you don't pay for them. so it's a user fee. the next thing that will come from conservatives is that it is a -- it is a regressive user fee. i come from rural pennsylvania. so my folks will pay more, but it has a progressive benefit to the folks in rural pennsylvania. the most rural counties in america, for every dollar they put in, they got $1.70 back.

you can't build a road from pittsburgh to philadelphia through rural pennsylvania without the population centers subsidizes the roadways through my district. we saw this through pennsylvania, the complaint from those in my district, the legislators, we subsidized septa and the pittsburgh transit authority by 30%. a roadway through my district gets subsidized anywhere 350% to 70% because there just isn't the population. so i think it's important for all of us to understand we're talking about something that has a huge benefit to those of us that live in rural populations and benefits the urban center so they can get across the rural areas. we can talk about 15 cents raising the gas tax. that's a cup of coffee, unless you drink starbucks coffee, it's half a cup of coffee. or two bottles of water that you can get at home for two pennies. the president proposed a meeting 25 cents. that's a great starting place to

start to talk about this. we have to get past that to talk about other things. one of the questions i have for you, madam secretary, is on the idea of asset recycling. some of my colleagues, mr. defazio, he's not here so he wants me to say -- i'm proposing we sell all of our assets. that's not at all what they did in australia, they lease their assets. formed a lease agreement. they still have a say in the matter. they can take it back any time if there is no performance. so i wanted to see what your thoughts are on the idea of asset recycling. >> we want all funding and financing options to be available. because that's going to be the biggest challenge facing this infrastructure proposal. and so we should look at other countries, as mentioned, like australia, like many european countries, in which there are public-private partnerships, which have been very successful. there has been asset recycling,

we should be looking at all of these. in some of our states we do not allow many of these other financing options to be utilized. so what we are saying is, let's be open to all sorts of other options. so, for example, it's not only toll roads, but it's private activity bonds, it's different aspects of revenue availability streams. there are many different options, and we should be -- i would like for us to -- i would like to encourage all of us to look at some of these other options and not disallow or forbid any one of them from being considered in the proposal. >> and i think that's a great point. think pointing to europe and other countries, social democratic countries around the world, they're turning to the private sector all the time to try to figure out ways to get them involved, utilized. the canadian pension funds are huge investors in infrastructure, not just in canada but around the world.

but, again, it's not a silver bullet, but we have to, again, look at ways to expand that, to encourage that. it's one of the tools in the toolbox, but it can be a bigger tool in the toolbox, i believe. so the final question i have for you is on permitting. i know you've done many rule makings. permitting is still a problem. i think there is still a need for legislation to help you with that permitting process. can you tell us what the permitting situation over at d.o.t., how are you moving forward? what's the outlook? >> people get permitting and the deregulatory agenda mixed up. they're actually quite different. also, the f.a.s.t. act asked that the department in 2015 implement a number of nipa improvement. of the 31 requested rules, we have actually completed 29. there are two more coming out,

probably around june and july, but the f.a.s.t. act requirements only refer to nipa. and the permitting is actually different and that is why the one federal decision which the president announced last august, 2017, will address some of the permitting. and the permitting processes that we are talking about does not compromise all of our concerns about the environment at all. but it refers to sometimes very simple common sense ways we can improve the permitting process. for example, many permitting processes occur sequentially rather than concurrently. sister agencies within the same

department, for example, the department of transportation, cannot share their information with each other. they each go out for their own surveys sequentially, so that lengthens the time it takes for permitting. there are other common sense ways of reducing duplication, you know, some -- some regulations or some even guidance -- ask for the same things. but they'll ask for a different timeline so that the reporting requirement then has to be done all over because they ask for different time periods. so we all protect the environment, but the permitting is not nipa. permitti -- nepa. we are making progress and a lot of the private sector of these private pension funds, they are actually quite anxious to help in the rebuilding of infrastructure.

and it would help if we decreased the permitting process, again, without compromising any of the environmental concerns. that will decrease the risk profile and enable more private sector pension funds, for example, to come and help in the financing of public infrastructure. >> well, thank you very much for that. and, again, we are ready, willing and able for your department to send forward to us things we can be helpful in that permitting process to streamline to make it irz. if we have to pass legislation, that's something we all on this committee should be willing to underwake. one of the great places to starred when it comes to permitting and government regulation is the corps of engineers. i met with the conference of mayors yesterday and last week with aashto. i like to get a show of hand who's has a project they're working on or want to work on that the corps of engineers has been a huge problem -- a huge challenge to the project. every single person in the room

raises their hand. that's why the subcommittee chairman garrett graves and i are working together. we're moving forward with a water resources bill and one of the focuses is going to be a serious look at the corps of engineers and a serious look why does the corps of engineers need the civil works piece of it, why does it need to be d.o.d.? 200 years ago, it made sense. the army was the only one who's could build a dam and a road work. today, it needs to move to a different agency. i would propose d.o.t., secretary zinke want it is to go to interior. that would be a healthy detainee -- on the democratic side of the aisle, none of you have not seen the corps of engineers stop, stifle or just increase the costs of a project. and so with that, i yield five minutes to mr. norton. >> i very much appreciate this hearing because there has been so much talk about the president's infrastructure plan and whenever we have an

opportunity to inquire about it. i have two questions for you, madam secretary, and i'm so pleased to see you here this morning. one has to do with the holdup in appropriated funds. it's hard enough to get funds out of here. and i note, by the way, in the president's infrastructure bill there would be $130 million -- billion in new competitive grant funds. so this committee and the congress is likely to look at, well, what have you done with the funds we have appropriated or authorized. according to our count, there is -- there are nearly $6 billion in program funds that remain unspent. and of this $2 billion are among the most competitive. more jurisdictions want them than can possibly qualify for the amount. in infra and tiger grants, for example. i know this looks like it is something of a indoctrinated. you held up $1 billion, even in emergency relief funds, until the democrats in this committee

wrote you and it was relieved -- it was released. i have to ask you, madam secretary, what is keeping you from getting this money out of the door? don't you think it will -- it will -- it will reflect on whatever we're able to do with the president's plan if that money is not gotten to where -- where it is needed? >> thank you for that question. i'm -- i don't think that is accurate, that the emergency relief funds are not released. we have actually made record times. >> it's been released now, but only after -- >> no, no, no, we understand how important the emergency relief funds is and as soon as the request comes in, we've actually been very, very good about turning it. >> i know they're released now, but the democrats on this committee had to write a letter in order to get them released. okay, they're released now. >> i may respectfully disagree with that. if i can answer the rest of your questions. on the $6 billion, i don't think

we have that much money outstanding, but i have good news for you, i don't think it's $6 billion either. but having said that, i think it took awhile for this government to be stood up because we didn't have our nominees. i only had four nominees confirmed as of april of 2018. -- february of 2018. i just got three others confirmed last week. so the ability of this government to stand up under this administration has been impacted by our not having our top leadership -- >> we have noticed that. that is very good news. can you -- >> i understand that is not this chairma chamber. >> it's not the chamber. i think it's the administration, but whoever it is -- >> having said all of that, i do have good news for you. hopefully the tiger grants will be coming out soon. but we do have to notify the appropriators first. so they will get the first --

>> when do you expect that to occur, madam secretary? >> hopefully this week. >> thank you very much. that's very good news. >> very soon. >> i'm there with almost everybody on this platform has an interest in those grants. >> on -- on the infra. let me just mention the infra grants also. the tiger and infra grants, and perhaps this is something that you can take a look at, they were actually put under the f.a.s.t. act under a new office in the policy office, which actually is not an operational office. so they have to do the tiger grants first and then they can turn to infra. hopefully we will get that out probably by the beginning of june or -- let's say june. the beginning of the summer. >> you've given us very welcome information on that. look, the interstate, of course, is a product of the eisenhower administration. it's one of the fairest and most progressive ways to distribute

money. and yet the president's infrastructure plan looks like it discriminates against most of the country. 52% of the country which provides most of the gdp. because of the way in which the plan provides money for the rural areas, it looks like it reverses, it reverses what we've always done. 80% of the money for everybody, except, of course, the rural areas got even more subsidy, but 80% came from the federal government, 20% came from the states. and it looks as though you have reversed that -- reversed that and provide $40 million in the first year for rural areas with 80% and suburban and big cities where all the congestion is get 20%. why have you reversed the age-old way in which we

distribute highway funds? the formula that has worked now for 75 years. >> secretary, go ahead and answer that and we'll move on. >> can she at least respond? >> that's why i said, secretary can you answer the question and then we'll move on. >> the 80-20 formula applied only to interstate. as mentioned, the federal role -- federal government owns 10% of the highways, the roads, the bridges -- >> the states have to take care of the rest, madam secretary. we, the federal government, we only take care of- >> ms. norton, your time is expired. please allow the secretary to finish. thank you. >> my only was the 80-20 formula applies own the to the interstate highways. >> thank you. i'll recognize mr.mr. -- >> i have the privilege of

chairing the aviation subcommittee and the honor of representing the federal aviation administration's flagship technical center, which i'm sure you know is responsible for all safety, security development and the extraordinary work done by more than 3,500 people at that location for aviation in america. i know your opening statement was limited and there are so many need for infrastructure, but i didn't hear anything referred to about what we're doing with aviation, a major economic component and driver for our nation. specifically, i'm hoping you can address three areas that i think are critical to the future of aviation, and the faa research, engineering and development account, a prosed cut of more than $100 million. it basically freezes them and puts them dead in the water. uas is a growing, growing area in our nation which requires a lot of oversight and a lot of

attention, and the uas research account is cut to a fraction of what it has been in previous years when the problem hasn't been as big. and the last one is the faa technical center laboratory facility, which is located completely at the tech center, the data count is cut by a third. if we're going to stay at the cutting edge of aviation for the united states of america, i don't know how we can withstand those kinds of cuts, and hopefully you might be able to give me some insight in how we're going to try to deal with this and restore that. >> thank you those questions. i'm sorry we didn't have a chance to visit the facility. >> the invitation is wide open for you. >> thank you. for some reason we could not. we had a date but then it did not happen. aviation is obviously very important. the president -- the chairman's proposal on air traffic control legislation was a seminal piece that could have improved air travel, which the administration

supported, but unfortunately it did not garner enough support within the -- this chamber and so that was abandoned. on the research, the faa has the second largest budget in the department of transportation. the department of transportation has a budget of $77 billion. highway is a major portion for the roads, for the interstate highway system and the remainder is for the next biggest chunk is to aviation. and we actually have a research office within the office of the secretary, and so there needs to be some coordination and some better improvement in ensuring that the projects that are being done by the research office and the office of the secretary, which is the rest of the department, and the faa are

actually not redundant and that they are not duplicative either. on the issue of uas, i'm very, very much a supporter of autonomous vehicles, unmanned aerial systems. we are actually focussing a great deal on it. but, again, there is actually a great deal of research money, but the research money is not used very well. and so we are in the process of trying to figure out, you know, where is all of this money going? how is it achieving the stated purposes of the department's mission? and the third one, i forgot. what did you mention? >> well, the third one is the -- >> the grants and airport -- >> the technical center laboratory facility. >> oh, right. i don't have an answer for that. i will look into that, but this is obviously a concern to you and we can talk more about it. >> well, if you have the opportunity to visit the technical center, you will see the unique laboratories that

exist nowhere else in the country and the engineers that are doing the work there that in many cases cannot be duplicated anywhere else. hopefully that will help influence part of how you feel about this. but thank you very much. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. larson's recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary chao, thanks for coming to help us out today. i've got a couple of questions. one is a local problem. one is -- a couple of others are about the proposal itself. first is related to new starts and specifically sound transit. we've got an ffga awaiting some help from you all for only 38% of the product itself. so we're putting in 62% of it. it's for lynwood link. it extends light rail. at any rate, for the second year, the administration's proposed a budget culture of winding down the capital

investment grant program by limiting funding to projects that already have signed ffgas. runs counter to the f.a.s.t. act which authorizes funding.fcag. i was wernd wondering when -- approve -- >> the administration's budget says that if projects are not already in line to receive ffga, then we cannot sign new ones. but obviously there are aspects of the budget that the congress is going to disagree with. and so we look forward to working with the congress. >> all right. and that gets to my second question. the other point, because part of the administration's proposal on infrastructure is to encourage local government, state governments, the local funding entities to raise their own

dollars, and then that puts them in line, what you're proposing, it puts them in line to get federal funding. help yourself, and then you'll get federal help. that's literally what the administration proposes for its infrastructure package in part, which is what we're doing in the pacific northwest, as recently for the next phase of southern transit where we all tax ourselves $54 billion over the next 5 million years i think is what i'm paying for a long, long time. and yet there are zero dollars proposed in the administration's budget to support that kind of activity because you want to move to a different system. i just don't think you need to move to a different way of helping out local entities that are already doing what you're asking them to do. there's an inconsistency there. it's certainly an issue i'm going to continue to pursue as we work with you all on trying to improve the administration's proposal.

as well, i just want to note that jimmy duncan led a panel here a few years back on public, private partnerships. and we conclude, and mike capuano was here, we concluded that p 3s are not a silver bullet, but there's room for them. i would offer to you that if the administration can be more clear about where you think p3s can help best, there might be a different kind of model for airports than it is for roads, bridges highways, and it might be a different kind of model for water, sewer than it is for rail, as opposed to trying to pack package it all as one big -- what comes across as one big p3 package, and that's not helpful to you all. i believe there's room, maybe not as much as the president believes. i believe there is some room. i offer that as well.

>> thank you. >> yeah, sure. and then finally -- maybe not finally. but we've talked about the gas tax, the user fee. washington state has the third highest gas tax in the country. but i'd like to remind my colleagues that we are tied for first in the lowest income tax in the country as well. of zero. so it is a balance of funding in how you fund your government, how you fund to do things. i wonder how you would characterize the administration's position on raising the federal portion of the gas tax. how would you characterize that today? >> well, one reason i am here with no solutions on the pay force is because we have not yet come to a resolution on that. so i think the good news is for certain people is that everything's on the table. and that this administration is open to all -- considering all revenue sources. some people are not going to be happy at that. but as of now, everything is on the table, and there's been no resolution on how to pay for

this proposal. which is why, once again, we sent principles up, we did not send legislative language. >> right. >> because we really do want this to be a bipartisan effort and we need the help and counsel of the congress on these and many other issues as well. >> thanks. and i look forward to hearing back from you specifically a little bit more on the cig grant and the ffgas for transit. thanks a lot. >> thank the gentlemen, now recognize mr. barletta for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary chao, thank you for being here today to talk about the president's infrastructure proposal. i commend both of you, you and the president, for recognizing how important america's transportation systems are to maintaining our world class economy. i'm going to begin today by venturing a bit outside what we traditionally think of when we talk about infrastructure. last week, following the tragic

shooting in parkland, florida, i called for u.s. schools to be added to the current categories of critical infrastructure. these 16 sectors are considered so vital to our nation's well-being that the federal government works with state and local partners to ensure their security and resilience. i believe our schools should be the 17th critical infrastructure. secretary chao, what ways can the department of transportation assist in ensuring our schools are treated like critical infrastructure, and our kids get the protection that they need? surely if we treat our banks as critical and we defend bureaucrats at the department of education with armed security guards, we can deem america's children as critical as well. >> this is obviously a devastating blow to our country. and as you have seen, on television, the president has held meetings with survivors,

their relatives, parents and relatives who have lost their loved ones. this is a devastating blow, and the president feels very strongly, keenly about this issue. on the issue of infrastructure, and including hardening schools to be part of the infrastructure proposal, i would bring this back to the white house and to the president. >> great, thank you. i think that's something that we can all agree on as we debate all these other issues. people can't get into our schools, they can't harm our children. so thank you. i was pleased to see that the white house's proposal included a section on workforce development. back in december i chaired a hearing in the subcommittee on economic development that examined ways in which the opioid crisis is impacting the workforce, and economic growth in the appalachian region, which includes my home state of pennsylvania. what we've seen is that individuals in this part of the

country, who are 25 to 44 years old, experience mortality rates 70% higher than the non-appalachian states. typically this group includes americans in their prime working years, which has created a significant challenge to economic development in the region, recognizing how important a strong workforce is to rebuilding our infrastructure, and knowing that opioids are devastating that workforce, especially in rural areas, which the administration has targeted as a critical area of investment, can you speak to how the infrastructure proposal will help address this issue? >> well, it's a huge issue. and secretary acosta in the labor department has responsibility for the workforce development, workforce retraining part. the infrastructure proposal hopefully will spark new

buildings, which will yield good-paying jobs. and we probably will not have enough skilled trades workers to be able to address all the infrastructure needs when it finally gets all going. so the workforce training and retraining part is important. and your idea about including, or somehow working with these communities and populations of people who will certainly be benefitted by this turning their lives is something that, again, i'm very interested in, personally as a former secretary of labor. and i would bring that back also to the white house and to secretary acosta. >> thank you, thank you for your work. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman,

recognize ms. innapolitano. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my question deals with the bill, 54 billion infrastructure package, intended to spur the state and local infrastructure. that past major bill of legislation was two-thirds vote of our legislation known as senate bill 1 provides 54 billion. do you believe that this recently passed legislation, passage that you supported, is california's senate bill? >> unfortunately i'm not very much -- i'm not really up to speed on that. if i may ask to take a look and we'll be more than glad to answer that question. >> yes. and my question deals with the lack of recognizing that the states that pass infrastructure

packages, in addition to passing that bill, the county of los angeles passed two transportation sales tax measures since 2009, providing 120 billion over the next 40 years. the voters approved with 70% of the vote the most recent sales tax was last year. concerning the majority of your plan significantly penalizes state and local governments that have raised revenues prior to january 2018. not only do states and locals recently passed legislation infrastructure legislation package score poorly when rated by your department, you limit these projects to qualify for only 5%, or 5 billion, out of the 100 billion of the new incentives projects program. why would you want to preclude the potentially great projects that have already -- have none federal revenues, already lined up, by responsible states and local governments, and don't you think your approach to

incentivize with slow project delivery? >> i understand the question. the original intent was, we wanted to recognize what states have done. but some states have done things five years ago, seven years ago, it's still on the books. so do we take into account, and just accept what they've done, let's say in the last ten years, that, we thought, was a little too much. so the current proposal has a three-year lookback. and if that is perhaps too long, again, we're flexible on that. i understand the point that you're making. for certain states that have taken the initiative, they bite -- they've bitten the bullet and why should they be penalized. the three-year lookback may not be ones they agree with, so we can talk about that. >> i would very much appreciate that, miss secretary. because your plan calls for 80%

of a project cost to be from state and local sources, we should be allowing states and local governments to have local hire preference. when the residents of california are voting by 70% margin for the bill to raise their own taxes in order to support transportation projects, they assume they will be given preference in getting those jobs. do you think states should be allowed to get preference to hiring their own taxpayers when they are paying for the vast majority of the project? >> that's probably an issue that i've got to bring back. again, there are 12 other agencies involved in this that i've got to go back to the white house and ask some of the other secretaries as well. >> well, would you please give us a clarification? because it's unfair if we're paying for the improvements, and we cannot hire local preference. >> i will take a look at that. >> thank you. another issue is the los angeles county is preparing to host the

nation and the world for the 2028 olympic games. and we would give us your commitment to make these critical transportation projects a priority, potentially convening a d.o.t. working groop among staff to that the needed infrastructure is in place to host a successful olympic games. >> well, your mayor has been in to see us and other agencies on this issue as well. we look forward to working with him and also with you. >> very well, thank you. there's also in regards to successfully hosting olympics, one of the most critical projects is the purple line, subway extension project, which will build a new station and subway line to serve ucla, one of the olympic venues, as well as a planned village for athletes. can you please give us your commitment that you will look at it, do everything you can to support the project and ensure that it's built on time and ready for the olympics?

>> you're not the only one that brought it up. as i mentioned, your mayor has been very good about approaching us on this. we will look forward to working with you and the mayor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. gibbs is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, madam secretary for being here today. i'm really encouraged about the proposal, especially the administration's proposal regarding streamlining, and how we can lower costs and do things more efficiently. i wanted to highlight a few things there before i have some questions. 404 permits, the white house language is similar to a bill i've introduced, hr-2917 that deals with vetoing and preemptively, retro actively dealing permits. so there's language in there that eliminates the duplicative oversight by -- another bill i have is hr-465, doing with integrative planning.

this bill will really help our local municipalities deal with their water and sewer projects. i know the administration supports that. i appreciate that because i think that's a good way to help bring more efficiencies and lower costs and get that infrastructure at the municipal level accomplished. and another proposal that the white house discussed a lot in your package is the water infrastructure finance innovation act, which a pilot in '14, along with congress brian mass down in front of you, we have a bill that increases the funding and reauthorizes the program, the white house is very supportive of that. it's a partnership. and then rural broadband, i'm really concerned about that. good opportunity, i think, we're kind of like personalized on interstate highway system, if we get rural broadband accomplished, how that helps with jobs, opportunities, and

education across -- i just want to highlight that. and the administration's proposal, you talk about a $50 billion investment to improve infrastructure in rural areas. can you elaborate on how that would come about, how you operate that, and what types of projects might be eligible for that funding? >> we understand the rural america has different needs. and so a specific title is set aside for rural america needs. 40% of that would be by formula, understanding, again, that, you know, having some kind of a public private partnership won't really work given the lesser density, and the -- just the volume, the density that's required in a public private partnership. so 40% of that will be by formula. and about 10%, as is currently

discussed, would be competitively bid. if i may also return back to your legislation, and give you a shoutout about the 404 and 402. these are not within the department of transportation. they are within the army corps of engineers. and so as a chairman, and others have mentioned, that is always a point of great concern, on the parts of many parties. but the 404 and 402 permits both require substantially the same information, and yet they must be -- they must be gathered and then they're conducted separately, sequentially, thereby adding unnecessary time lags to the permitting process. so thank you for that. >> you're right, it's not in your jurisdiction, per se. but i'm sure you have input with -- at the administration's level how important that is, and of course it wasn't a president's package, the 50-page document i read. so i think that's a big help.

back on the rural infrastructure, the 40%, you're taking into account because a lot of projects might be smaller or harder to find partnership financing because of the nature of that. so you think that formula takes in account enough to -- for private institutions or private entities that want to get involved in that because the costs are higher and the returns might not be as well? >> well, that actually would be up to the congress. again, we send guidelines. that particular part is supposed to be formula. beyond that, there are not very many details. we look forward to working -- >> i'm about out of time. i wanted to mention, i always think it's a good priority if the administration identifies certain projects that are national, significant importance, regional projects that have economic or national defense issues that should be addressed. and so i would just encourage that. things like, you know, certain

infrastructure in certain areas that are critical to our economy and our national security should be prioritized by the administration. so i look for leadership from the administration to help identify those and push for those where states might not be able to address those as well. >> thank you. >> thank you, i yield back. >> thank the gentlemen. recognize mr. lipinski for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you, madam secretary, for all your years of service to our government. i'm glad that we have now got the conversation going on infrastructure plan. and i thank the chairman for his work, i'm very hopeful that we can move forward with a bipartisan plan here in this committee. i know the chairman wants to do that. ranking member defazio does. i think we all do. i'm very hopeful we can get that done. on the infragrants, the

$1.5 billion there, hopefully those will get out in june, and not later. i know there's a project that everyone knows, i always talk about create, the real modernization program in chicago that is 67% is both comes from private funding, state and local funding. so i think that fits perfectly what the administration is talking about. i hope to see that funding come. another big issue in chicago is public transit and the needs are, in the transit system, our capital needs are very, very big. the capital needs would account for, you know, 18% of the entire pot of federal funding in the administration plan, the $200 billion. i know mr. larsen had talked about the full funding grant agreements, the situation there. and i wanted to make a point in

that it's important that transit does -- is eligible for the funding, and that there has to be a way that i believe that transit can get funded, is very tough for transit to be able to come up with the 80 to 90% for a transit project, locality to come up with that. does the administration see those projects, transit projects as being possible through the administration's plan? and if the -- if congress comes up with a different plan that is much more supportive of transit funding, will the administration support that coming out of congress? >> you ask very good questions. and number one, i would say we want to work with the congress. so that is a basic premise. we do have a disagreement about the amount of support for

transit. but i would hope that we are open to discussing these projects. and currently in the principles that are sent up to the hill, there is no disparaging positioning of transit versus other projects. if anything, once again, it leaves it up to the local and state governments to select what projects they want. so if they want transit versus something else, it's up to them. >> thank you. it can be very tough to come up with the 80% on transit. i want to move on to tifia and riff. >> yeah. >> which are very good programs, and the administration agrees with that. they have been undersubscribed though. what is the administration going to do to make those more attractive, both tifia and riff? >> only one of them is

undersubscribed. and so in the infrastructure proposal, there are recommendations to loosen up, to broaden the eligibility. so that more parties can participate, and we think that that will probably allow more usage of those programs. >> because i know there has been an issue with riff that has made it very -- has made it unattractive for many of the shortline railroads actually to use that. but that's something we can discuss further later. i want to follow up on riff. the former administration, the obama administration said that they would follow by america policies for riff. does the current administration also believe in that buy america needs to be followed for the riff program? >> i think this administration, this president in particular, feels very strongly about that.

so we've actually been very, very tough on it, on the buy america provision. it is not within the infrastructure proposal, if that is what's being discussed. but it is an overriding statue that all of us have to abide by, and do abide. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank the gentlemen. now recognize mr. webster for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, secretary, for being here today. we appreciate your willingness to come and testify about something that's an important issue for all of us. i'm from florida, central florida. we depend on transportation, it's a huge part of our economic engine when it deals with tourism. and we're also a dbig user, i'd like to keep going on the tifia program, especially in central florida, we're big users of tifia. when you are talking about

broadening the ability of states and local governments to apply for a tifia loan, is there a pecking order that's going to be there? because in our particular case, three of the big projects were the tunnel down in miami to the port, i-4, which is an ultimate project, which is about six years -- six years in the making. and then there's also the central florida expressway which had a large tifia loan which will complete the beltway around orlando. in each of those cases, that loan is going to be paid back by new money in that it's going to be paid back by tolls. and there are some other projects are the same. if the -- those that can apply is broadened, will there still be given some sort of nod to

those that, number one, provide a huge chunk of that money from the state or local government? and number two, it's guaranteed by a revenue -- it would be a revenue-producing project. as opposed to those who may just pay it back from their regular state transportation trust funds or something like that, it's not real new money, just advancing a project. so anyway, my question is, will there still be given some priority to those who are going to bring new money into the system and pay it back with new money, which will be recurring each year, even after the loan is paid back? anyway, that's my question. >> the simple answer to all of these questions is yes. but i don't want -- but i want to get you a definitive answer. if you will allow me to go back and confirm that, i will do so. because the repayment portion, we just want to make sure it's

repaid. so whatever sources we will -- we really are -- we just want to make sure that it's going to be solid and -- >> if there is an advantage to the federal government in that there's new money being interjected that won't end when that tifia loan is repaid, in that it's going to produce, and in our state, the monies that are collected from tolls can be used to enhance that particular infrastructure project, in this case at road, to bring in more traffic, more money, and more things can be handled, even with the local level, without any federal participation and/or minimal participation through maybe another tifia loan. anyway, i just don't want to lose any kind of positioning to those who would not be having a -- i know you want to get the money paid back. i got that. but on the other hand there is two ways. and the one that will produce money would be -- seems to me would be better. >> yours is not the only

example. so let me get you a firm answer. >> okay. >> if you would. >> thank you. yield back. >> not at all, thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. next is mr. sires, recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing, madam secretary, thank you for being here. i represent the district in new jersey where the two tunnels are. >> can you speak into the mic a little more. >> where the two tunnels are located, the lincoln tunnel and the harlan tunnel. obviously you know they're over a hundred years old. and obviously they were very hit very hard by sandy. we have over 200,000 riders that use these tunnels a day. the northeast corridor commission estimates that the economy will lose about $100 million a day if something happens to these tunnels. you and i were both present when governor christie and governor

cuomo had a meeting with the president regarding the gateway tunnel, and everybody there left very enthusiastic. the president seemed to be supportive, including yourself seemed to be supportive of this project. but lately it seems like this project has come under attack. let me just state a couple of things. first, rejecting the 50/50 partnership agreement between new jersey, new york and the u.s. government. that was an agreement that was done on the obama administration because of the necessity that these tunnels need to be redone. then trying to eliminate the capital investment grant funds, and trying to eliminate funding for amtrak, and now there are reports of the president, is appealing to speaker ryan to pull all the funding for the gateway tunnel.

i'd just like to know what happened. we left there so enthused, you were enthused, the president was enthused. all of a sudden this is a project that is not such a priority, especially when there were 52 million people in this region, and it generates about 20% of the economy in this region. so can you give me some -- something that i can be enthusiastic about? i really am very disappointed in the president, we go there and we thought we had something good going. >> i'm very glad you answered those questions. number one, on september 7th, 2017, when this meeting occurred at the white house, we were very polite. we were cordial. there was no commitment at all. the attendees of that meeting -- >> i didn't say you were cordial or polite. i didn't say there was no agreement. i said everybody left there very enthusiastically. >> the attendees of that meeting

exited that meeting and spun the results of that meeting as they wanted the meeting to be. there was no commitment from that meeting. as i mentioned, it was a cordial, respectful, courteous meeting. there's been so much misinformation about this. i'm so pleased to be given this opportunity to clarify. these gateway projects, nine of them, collectively called gateway out of convenience. and the total bill is $30 billion. new york and new jersey are two of the richest states in the country. >> i know. we send a lot of money to the federal government. >> they're putting in less than 5% on one, and zero in the other. there's no agreement. there's never been an agreement. secretary fox said at a political rally in the heat of the campaign in 2016 that he was

going to help. there's no documentation. there's no paperwork. and, in fact, there's no pending application. so i don't want to sound hostile, sir -- >> i have five minutes. secretary, i have five minutes. i just wanted to see if there is -- if there is some sort of help that we can expect in this region because these two tunnels are 108 years old. and if they collapse, the entire country is going to pay a price for this. >> and new york and new jersey -- >> support any kind of help for these tunnels because i've been there -- >> new york and new jersey can come up with larger than 0 or 5%. >> right now they are willing to commit 50% of the project. >> the rest of the money is going to take every other transit project funding from all across the state, all across the country. this is going to be a et aheate discussion. it's going to take money from every other transit project in america. >> okay. >> that's just the fact. >> we already raised the gas tax 23% to deal with the transportation trust fund. and it's very expensive to go

from new jersey to new york. >> there's a lot of -- on this, and please understand, new york and new jersey has got to up their local share. >> thank you. >> gentleman yields back. mr. denham is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, welcome to the committee today. we've talked a lot about the trillion dollars that we'd all like to see, even more than a trillion dollars, one of the ways we do that is through financing. and as we've had a number of discussions in this committee about user pay projects, there is not a bigger user pay project than water storage. i'm a rate payer. every time i turn on that tap, i am paying for that water storage. if we can build water storage in california and solve our water crisis, it can be the biggest infrastructure project in the country. and we've done some new things with wifia. we have a number of financing programs that work well.

my new water act would expand that to reclamation projects. the principles are within the president's working document. i wonder if you could describe where the decision is on where that's housed, and whether or not you think that's a good financing tool for not only infrastructure projects, but specifically water storage. >> unfortunately, that is epa admin st administrators portfolio. that has to be addressed to him, and i'll go back to the white house and bring back your concerns to him. >> thank you. we'd certainly like to see that housed under d.o.t. as wifia is as well. but the reclamation epa will be out in my district, and we'll have that discussion. but this is a big financing tool to be able to build big water storage in california and elsewhere. let me switch to another issue that pertains to water storage.

we've passed, out of this committee, we've passed a number of pieces of legislation, including an amendment to the fast act, which deals with nepa reciprocity. we want to obviously deal with the highest environmental quality policies across the country. we just don't want to do it twice. and so california, we've been utilizing our exemption on nepa to just deal with seqa, so you're not seeing the long delays on lawsuits and permitting process. right now that is -- the program is currently limited to d.o.t. projects. can you discuss about how we would use these in expedited project delivery for surface water storage projects and the merits of expanding this type of policy, to water agencies as well? >> well, so much of the permitting process spans over so many departments and agencies. which is why when we talk about

infrastructure, there needed to be a multiagency, one federal decision process. and that's why the president made that announcement with the one federal decision with, you know, one federal agency, one federal cabinet. kind of being first among equals to take the lead in some of these permitting difficulties issues. we're in the process of signing an mou with the various dent departments. and we hope to have that pretty soon. but the president's been pretty aggressive in mandating he wants the permitting process to be shortened. again, the permitting process is not the nepa process necessarily. we don't want to compromise the environment at all. but how do we have a more common sense call approach to streamlining the permitting process so that redundant,

duplicitous processes are somehow resolved? >> well, thank you. my time is short here. but let me just say how excited i am about having a large infrastructure project, that could not only solve california's water crisis, but really expand our ports, expand our highways, really expand goods movement as we create more jobs. we will continue to partner with you to find new revenues. obviously we'd like to see our numbers as high as we can. but also want to have the creativity to use our current financing systems, and streamline these projects. to take these projects not only taking ten years, but in some cases, including california water storage, it's not only multidecade, it's generational gaps in new water storage. so we're looking at those opportunities to expedite these projects and actually get them built not only in our lifetime,

but get them built in the next couple years. excited about the new proposal and want to find new ways we can work together. i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank the gentleman, and now recognize mr. johnson for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i appreciate your testimony today. secretary chao, and i noticed that in your written testimony submitted for the record, as well as your oral testimony today you failed to make any mention whatsoever as to public transportation. that's a glaring omission. can you explain why you have not testified and not spoken on public transit? is it not important? >> well, it's not excluded. >> but you didn't mention it though. >> i didn't mention highways too much either. so -- but your point is well taken. >> you didn't -- >> it's whatever is the infrastructure needs of the local communities. again, we leave that to the -- we don't express a preference for one or the other.

we leave it up to the local communities. but i take your comment to heart. >> well, let me ask you this. >> yes. >> do you agree that public transit is and should be a tool in the infrastructure tool box? >> sure. if the local community wants it. it's up to them to prioritize. >> okay. and do you believe that public transit systems significantly improve economic vitality and opportunities for small businesses. >> in urban areas where there's density and where there is enough traffic, yes. >> and it allows or it enables these local communities to prosper and grow. isn't that correct? >> well, sometimes they can't pay for the transit systems and then it's a problem. >> well, the federal government has always seen that it is important in the local communities that they have support for public transit. and you agree with that, don't you? >> no, i think it actually varies. some administrations support it more so than others.

>> so you don't think the public -- you don't think public transit is something that the federal government should invest in? >> well, we have -- the federal government does invest in federal transit. there's something called the federal transit administration. >> but you don't think that it should going forward because you left it out of -- >> i didn't say that. you're asking me to prefer transit over something else. i'm saying this is a local decision. >> i'm just asking you to recognize it in your comments to our committee, and you failed to do so. >> i don't understand that. i didn't mention other modes of transportation like aviation. i was criticized on that as well. >> do you think public transit is important? >> in certain cities where there's enough volume and density to support it, it can be a viable alternative transportation system. >> well, what is the trump transportation plan insofar as public transit is concerned? what is the plan? >> well, we have a budget for

the federal transit administration, what's the budget? there's a federal transit administration with a full budget. and we support all the transit programs there. >> budget is being cut by 19%. correct? >> well, that indicates that sometimes administrations don't fully agree with all the transit projects. >> well, you're pretty good at jumping around my questions. >> no, i'm trying to be cooperative and answer. >> no, you're not. let me ask you this question. the trump infrastructure proposal would turn the funding formula on its head by requiring state and local governments to cough up 80% of the cost of infrastructure. do you believe that it's realistic to believe that cash strapped municipalities in rural america will be able to squeeze sufficient revenues from state and local taxpayers to pay the 80% share of the cost of infrastructure improvements? >> well, as i've mentioned, the

80/20 applies only to interstate projects. that's always been the case. the rest of the transportation systems in the country is 10% owned by the federal government, 90% owned by the states. >> well, you're not answering my questions. >> the existing programs, the budget still states, the fast act, all states -- >> madam, my question is, do you believe that state and local governments will be able to cough up 80% of the share of the cost of infrastructure improvements? >> that is the question i'm paid for, as i mentioned, we will work with congress on that. >> do you think state and local taxpayers can afford to be squeezed. >> federal money is not free. federal money is taxpayers money as well. it's actually taxpayers money coming from the states and localities. they come up to us, we send it

back to the localities and to local and state governments with federal strings attached. that's what federal dollars are. >> one last question. >> yes, of course. >> you state the guiding principle of the trump infrastructure plan is the use of federal dollars as seed money to incentivize infrastructure investment by state and local governments. my question is, how does the trump infrastructure plan propose to incentivize private sector investment in rural areas? >> by the dint of the federal government getting involved in certain projects, they offer the weight and of the united states, and that improves the quality of some of the projects, and more private investors are willing to enter because they think there's been a seal of good housekeeping. and that's why, again, the federal government's entry, or

being involved in a transaction is helpful to helping the private sector enter. >> well -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. i thank the gentleman. thank you. i'd also like to remind the gentlemen, under the trust fund formula, 80% goes to highways, roughly 20% goes to transit, and states have the ability today, which of course us in rural pennsylvania are always complaining that the governor flexes dollars, which under the law it can do to philadelphia. so there is money being spent. we haven't talked about changing that formula, i don't believe, in the president's plans. new ideas. so again with that, i dosh. >> i thank the chairman for answering my question. >> you're quite welcome. i recognize mr. davis for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. and madam secretary. i appreciate you being here to talk about investing in our nation's infrastructure. i also appreciate the

cooperation and the responses that you've given to some of my colleague's previous questions. i disagree with some of the assertions that may have been made earlier. i actually appreciated the white house's infrastructure proposal. and kind of piggy backing onto my colleague mr. johnson's comments on rural america, i like the fact that some of those funds in the proposed plan were d dedicated to rural america. we've seen rural roads lag behind to lack of funds. prior to map 21, all bridges were eligible for funding under what was then the highway bridge program. however, this program was eliminated in map 21 with the majority of its funding going into the national highway performance program for which off system bridges are not eligible. this means that today 77% of all bridges in the u.s. are only eligible for funding under the surface transportation block grant program. this leads to many off system bridges in rural counties, like

those in my district being years, sometimes decades behind the -- behind in the maintenance that needs to be conducted. again, thanks for ensuring rural infrastructure was prioritized in this proposal. and i would also suggest that some of these dollars be allocated directly to local jurisdictions who can best identify their own infrastructure priorities, under the administration's proposal, the 80% of funding set aside for rural formula dollars would go directly to governors. it would make sense to me to use the black grant program to locals as a model. because, unfortunately, local infrastructure priorities, as chairman shuster just mentioned, don't always align with our governors, regardless of which party may be in charge. secretary chao, do you agree that we should include some level of local control of rural infrastructure dollars? >> in fact, the president's

entire infrastructure proposal leaves the priority to state and local leaders. so we don't say what project is preferable over another. we don't say which financing or funding mechanism is preferable. we're basically saying, it's really up to the local and state leaders. >> and i understand that. but as chairman shuster mentioned, as i mentioned, sometimes our governor's priorities, our state official's priorities may be overtaken in non-rural areas. i want to start my question that i support the d.o.t.'s device rule moving forward. much of the trucking industry has already invested millions into coming into compliance. i do, however, also believe that there are legitimate concerns for certain industries who are working to come into compliance. and this includes the livestock hauling industry. madam secretary, can you

describe fmsca's outreach to the agriculture industry leading up to the implementation of the ld rule. >> this is a very important rule, especially with reference to livestock. and i've heard from multiple numbers of rural lawmakers on this issue. >> well, thank you. >> fmcsa, i've been told, and if you are not satisfied with it, please tell me because i will go back and reenforce this point with them. i've been told they have held a number of outreach and educational sessions to try to explain the 90-day waiver that's been issued for livestock. and how this particular rule functions. but, again, if you're not satisfied with that, please let me know. >> we will have our local groups get back with us, and we'll reach out to d.o.t. >> right. >> so you're saying the 90-day waiver has already been

implemented. >> yes. >> eight livestock groups submitted a letter asking for a waiver and that's already been approved. >> the last one was december 18th. it was extended until march 18th, which is coming up. >> do you anticipate another waiver? >> well, this is a big decision. because legislatively the department is constrained. so we have to study it carefully. but i'm very sympathetic to this issue. >> i'm specifically talking about the livestock industry. >> this is the waiver. >> what's that? >> this is the waiver. the waiver was only for livestock, yeah. >> okay, thank you very much. i appreciate the opportunity to ask you this, and we'll get back with you on the waiver issue to make sure our questions are answered. thank you, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman, and now ms. titus is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, welcome back to the committee. it's nice to see you. the last time you were here i asked you about the status of the national advisory committee on travel and tourism

infrastructure. just to remind everybody of what that is, in the fast act i worked with my colleagues across the aisle. we had a bipartisan amendment to the fast act, that created a committee to report directly to you, that brought together a diverse array of experts from across the travel and tourism industry, and they were to advise you on, i quote, current and emerging priorities, issues, projects and funding needs related to the use of intermow call transportation network and the united states to facilitate travel and tourism. and travel and tourism are very important to my district in las vegas, but all around the country, no matter what district you represent, there's something related to tourism that is there. now, we thought that with infrastructure being such a priority of this president, that now would be a good time for this committee to be meeting and giving advice on how travel and tourism priorities would fit into that plan. under your predecessor, the

advisory committee was up and running, meetings were occurring, they were coming with recommendations. in february of last year, though, following your confirmation, i led this letter with my fellow house and senate members who are co-chairs of the travel and tourism caucus. and i'd like to ask that this be submitted into the record. we were urging you to kind of prioritize that committee's work. unfortunately, though, nothing has happened. they haven't met. they've rescheduled meetings and they cancel meetings. and so i'd just like to ask you if they're unable to continue their work, you're not kind of empowering them to continue, how can their recommendations be reflected in the infrastructure plan? and are you just -- their charter goes away june the 20th. i wonder, are you just waiting out the clock? are you working with this committee? don't you think these priorities are important to consider as we

move forward with infrastructure plans? >> i know this is important to you. it was brought to my attention just before the hearing. we don't really have a good grasp over all of our -- what's called facas, all boards and commissions, and so we are slowly going through them to see what needs to be done with them, how do we get them going, and frankly i just haven't had enough staff to go through it. we will take a look at it. >> i hope so. it's been a year since i've asked about this. and their time is running out. we're putting the plan together now. and you've got experts on that committee who are ready and willing to go to work if you'll just give them the say-so. and, you know, in addition to that, according to the last section, or i'm sorry, the same section of the fast act, that requires that your department consult with them on the strategic plan, and that's supposed to be submitted by the end of the year.

if they're not up and operating, they're not going to be able to have any input into that either. and so i hope you will make a priority. i've been hoping that for a while now. it really doesn't seem like it would require that much effort to see what they're doing and what they can contribute to this kind of major infrastructure overhaul that you're talking about. >> thank you for bringing it to my attention. >> thank you. and i look forward to hearing back from you. and rossy rollen cotter who is the chair of that, and the chair of our convention authority to hear that progress is being made. >> thank you. >> thank you, and i yield back. >> without objection, the gentle lady's letter will be made part of the record. with that recognized, mr. sanford for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman. and i thank you, madam secretary. two quick questions on infrastructure. one is, could you give a little bit more definition of the

three-year lookback as it relates to infrastructure. for instance, south carolina just raised its gas tax, and one of the things i've heard from back home is questions as to the degree to which they will be recognized for doing so. question on that front. >> no, it's an issue. because, in fact, south carolina had a very, very good project which was originally on the first round, some grants that were to be released. and yet because of what they did, showing that they had initiative, they had responsibility, they were actually not eligible to receive the grant that they would have received if they were lagered in terms of not raising any revenues at all. so this is one of a number of projects. but there was also balanced against this other concern that there were states that did this ten years ago. and we don't want to -- there were some people in this working

group of 12 agencies that thought that that was not fair to include ten years. so the compromise was three years. and this and other issues, you know, i've mentioned to the chairman, we are more than willing to work with on a bipartisan basis with both sides on how to address this and other issues of concern. because i understand, south carolina is a glaring example where you did not get a grant because it was a port in south carolina. i don't know whether that's in your district. but they took responsibility. they raised their own revenues. and then subsequently they were not eligible for the grant. >> to be continued on that one. the other question is tied to charleston as well. and that is, one of the questions with ppps is in essence they're aimed toward revenue generating projects. and yet, if you look at flooding

in charleston, it is increased dramatically. something's going on in terms of sea level rise. we can have long debates on the why and the what. but the bottom line is that it's happening. and nuisance flooding has exacerbated, as has more damaging forms of flooding. they have committed significant amounts of money to doing so. but it looks like they'll be ineligible for many of these other kinds of grants given the fact that there has to be a revenue generating component to what's done, and that doesn't fit with safeguarding property as consequence of this flooding. any particular ideas there in terms of where folks in charleston might be able to better look on the grant front? >> i am not familiar with that. it is a good point. and if you'll let me take a look at that, and we'll get back to you on that. >> all right. i appreciate that, mr. chairman, thank you for the time. >> thank you. thank the gentleman. mr. payne is now recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary chao, i'm going to follow up with my colleagues' line of questionings, the series in reference of the gateway project. you know, this weekend "the washington post" reported that president trump is actively seeking to undermine the gateway project now. we know this project is one of the biggest and most expensive in the country, granted. we know that hundreds of thousands of commuters and inner city travelers rely on this trans-hudson infrastructure to get in and out of new york daily. despite the president's actions, are you saying that there was no commitment to support this critical infrastructure on the federal level? >> there is no commitment.

there's no documentation. there's no pending application. >> i was at that meeting in the white house as well. i sat about two chairs away from you. even about runway at la guardia airport that he felt that they should get. now you're saying that none of this happened? >> no, i did not say that. i said we were polite. we were respectful. we were cordial. we made no commitments. we want to work together. there's no doubt about that. but working together also means that new york and new jersey, two of the richest states in the country, have got to come up with more than 0 financing on one project, and 5% on the other.

>> i don't know where you're getting your information. because we have offered a 50/50 split with the federal government, not 80 -- not 10/90, not 80/20, 50/50 half. >> if that is the case, that is terrific. >> you had not heard that? >> no, we have been in the discussion -- >> you had not heard that, that they offered 50%? >> that could have been said. in the discussions we've been having with them, there's zero financing on the hudson tunnel and the portal bridge, zero financing on one by the new york, new jersey parties and 5% on the other. and they're using tifia loans which they are going to get from us as part of their downpayment. >> absolutely incorrect. >> well, sir, i think we have a disagreement about the facts then. >> exactly, yeah, and i know -- i know this administration and their alternate facts, and how

that works. >> i take exception to that. i never have said that. >> you can take exception to that. >> i don't want to be stern, but the misinformation on this project has been stunning. >> mr. chairman, time. >> the gentleman has the time. >> let me say this. it's very unfortunate that the things you hear come out of this administration, once you leave a day later, it just dissipates into air. it never happened. it just dissipates. it's an amazing. -- it's amazing. i really suggest you look at the facts, what new jersey has offered, new york and new jersey have offered on this. and please, can we somewhere along the line live up to our word with this administration?

and i yield back. >> sir, if you will put that in writing and have new york and new jersey submit something in writing, we will be more than pleased to look at it. thank you very much. because currently we have everything. >> i thank the gentlelady. i believe that is the fact, there has been no submission. it's up to the states to submit something here. with that i recognize mr. wo woodall for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. secretary. thank you, madam secretary, thank you from my home state of georgia, i've heard folks accuse the administration during this hearing of pushing problems down on folks. what i know is when our state was at its weakest, you all stepped in to make sure that the collapse of our major transportation corridor through the state collapse due to fire, you all were there, not from day one, but from hour one. and i'm thankful to your

responsiveness. i see sitting behind you mr. mcmaster and mr. ray. you've been served by a great team. i'm pleased that within the last month you've added a new member to your team, an assistant secretary by the name of adam sullivan, he served the georgia delegation for years. my expectations were already extremely high because of your leadership, but seeing those folks added to the list send it even higher. you mentioned when ms. napolitano was asking about the three-year lookback, the willingness to have that conversation, i'm grateful to you for sharing that, mr. sanford touched on that a little bit. are you able to share anything from those multipartner discussions to help me to understand what characteristics the department is looking for as

we continue to have that discussion? i know we want to encourage more investment. that's certainly what south carolina did, what georgia has done. and the fear is we don't want to go back and capture investments that were made a decade ago not being influenced by the $200 billion that's available. is it clear as you and i sit here today what those characteristics are that will determine the outcome of that discussion, whether it's an 80% credit, a 60% credit? is there any guidance you can provide to me or is it genuinely a blank slate and we'll have discussion going forward? >> you bring up some very good points about criteria. it's concern about how do we give people credit and they still get the federal dollars for a project that's already existing and up and running.

so we're looking forward to -- if i may add one thing, yes, thank you for your compliments about the appointees at the department. they're all doing a great job, as are the career folks. just wanted to let you know, adam sullivan was just sworn in yesterday, and he was nominated more than nine months ago. >> nine months ago. you wouldn't know you were shorthanded given the amount of productivity coming out of the department. we look at the numbers, $200 billion in brand-new federal dollars being pumped in, of course that's more money than the american recovery and reinvestment act pumped into transportation. it's a stunning amount of money, almost as much as the chairman was able to put forward in our f.a.s.t. act, the biggest transportation bill we've ever done around here. but i'm thinking about some of the regulatory challenges that the department has dealt with. by my count we're close to a

billion dollars in regulatory savings, not because we've sacrificed any of our stewardship responsibilities to the environment or to labor or to local control, but simply because of some of the efforts you all have made to spin that money more wisely. i know the first year on the job offers lots of potential. do you think we'll continue to see those kinds of regulatory reforms, those kinds of savings that cost us nothing as taxpayers and as stewards of the environment, but go to real dollars going back to infrastructure? >> under the previous administration, the burden of regulations on just the transportation sector alone was more than $3 billion a year. and in the last year, we've taken a look at these regulations without compromising on any of the really important things to us like the environment, and basically we've been able to have a deregulatory

approach that actually will decrease regulations by $312 million. concurrent with that is the permitting which is separate from the deregulation. i've given some examples of the permitting processes that can be improved. that's getting rid of sequential, duplicative processes. and we look forward -- many of them come actually from the members of congress yourself, giving us suggestions and recommendations as to what we should be looking for. and so we look forward to working with the members of congress and ensuring that projects really need to be online, are being given the permission that they need to begin improvements. >> i don't just thank you for what you do but how you do it. when young men and women talk to me about discord in politics today and want to know what a real public servant looks like, i often give them your name.

>> thank you so much. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair, and thank you, secretary chao. i want to associate myself with many of the comments that congresswoman espy made in mr. defazio's statement and chairman shuster and other colleagues who have highlighted issues or concerns with the administration's infrastructure package. unfortunately i believe the administration has ducked the tough decisions that congress must make, decisions on how to shore up the highway trust fund, and how to move towards a sustainable path for infrastructure investment. secretary chao, i'm concerned that your proposal undermines a key priority of mine to fund the nation's system of goods movement. i think i was glad to hear the

congressman mention goods movement. i know you've heard the phrase freight doesn't vote, which is why this has been so hard to deal with, it's hard to be won in congress. the administration's infrastructure plan proposes, as i understand, $100 billion grant program over ten years that the states and cities can compete for at a 20% federal share. this additional funding, however, is now paired with a presidential budget request that cuts $122 billion from the highway trust fund over ten years. you know, as you know, the highway trust fund provides a dedicated formula grant for freight programs as well as discretionary grants through the infra program. this proposed budget significantly scales back both. the president's budget also eliminates the highly oversubscribed tiger program

which has made key intramodal investments including $30 million to improve the flow of commerce at both the ports of l.a. and long beach. so the question i have is, given the nation's staggering needs to improve freight movement and relieve congestion, how does your administration's plan advance freight projects while at the same time eliminating guaranteed and dedicated funding for freight? >> freight is very important, obviously. and you bring up a very good point and i don't have an answer for you. i should. so if you would, let me get back to you on that. but you bring up a very important -- i am remiss, not being able to answer it. >> thank you. i hope while you're looking at it, you look at a proposal you put forth in hr 3001 which establishes a sustainable, dedicated freight trust fund. it would make sure that we have the resources to deal with these critical investments.

and i think it's consistent with what we've talked about before in terms of user fees. and i think that it would be -- i would like you at least to address that issue. also, next question, secretary chao, is the administration has said that it would like to reduce, and we've heard it here today, the environmental permitting process from ten years to two years. yet according to the council on environmental quality, the overwhelming majority of federal prongs that require environmental review, that's approximately 95% of those projects, proceed under categorical exclusions that are exempt from the most rigorous types of environmental review. less than 1% of the projects require a more rigorous environmental impact statement, the eis. and according to the federal highway administration, the average length of that review is less than four years. what i don't understand is, given these statistics, why does

president trump insist that it takes ten years to go through the permitting process for a transportation project? >> first of all, we're not talking about environmental permitting. we're just talking about permitting overall. as mentioned, we have no -- we all want to protect the environment. but there are ways in which the permitting process is duplicative, it doesn't make sense just from a process point of view, that we hope we can address. the permitting process also not only includes federal but state and local. and the process could take ten years. our part can be maybe a portion of that. so one example is in alaska, i went up to alaska in august and it just so happened that the permitting process for the sterling highway came through after a 35-year delay, and it came from interior. so are there not ways, we are asking ourselves, with input

from the congress, on how we can improve the permitting process? so many of these projects, transportation, infrastructure projects that need to be repaired, improved, can actually begin construction and improvement. that's what we're talking about. >> thank you. just as i yield back i will submit in writing, i'm concerned about the delays and uncertainty regarding the new starts program, i will submit that, especially about the orange county streetcar, which has gone through everything and is ready to go, and also i concur with congresswoman napolitano regarding the 2028 olympics in los angeles and the need for infrastructure improvement. thank you and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i have not seen your proposal on the freight rail trust fund. i would caution, though, the railroads typically don't want federal dollars because you put a dollar of federal money in, it costs twice as much, it takes twice as long to do it. again, i would be interested to see your proposals, so i appreciate that.

with that, mr. rabin is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, secretary chao. any big construction projects, say nothing of a $1.5 trillion infrastructure package, relies on a cost efficient network especially trucks to build it. for the past eight months i've been working hard to do something about the eld mandate which is not only hurting our economy but making our shared goal of rebuilding our inasmuch as the that much harder. i acknowledge that while there were serious issues with the cost and reliability of elds that we are already seeing, the bigger concern is the underlying hours of service regulations and the inflexible enforcement of them triggered by an eld. professional drivers often identify the current -- excuse me, the current ohs requirement as counterproductive and an

impediment to safety improvement. crashes are up, for example, by 56% since 2010. and drivers say they're often forced to drive at times of high traffic congestion, bad weather, tired, fatigue. and they want flexibility. so while i would continue to strongly urge you, madam secretary, to direct a waiver from this eld mandate for all sectors of the trucking industry, not just livestock as we've heard today, i would like to get your perspective and hopefully your commitment on steps that we can take to modernize and add some common sense to these hours of service regulations. my office is working right now with outside stakeholders on a solution that would provide for the same 14-hour window of service, but with additional flexibility for drivers to take their rest hours when they want and when they need it, not as weather and traffic conditions

permit. an eld tries to tell them to do so. can i have your commitment to work with us and your team to explore these sorts of options, either through the regulatory or the legislative process, madam secretary? >> i'm very sympathetic to this issue because i come from a rural state. but it does -- the eld issue and the waivers is tied into the hours of service, which is the underlying legislation. >> right. >> we are very much constrained by the law. so we look forward to working with you and there will be other people on the other side on how to handle this. >> i understand. but even those on the other side have a problem with the hours of service. and a lot of this could be i think taken care of if we could give some flexibility to some of our drivers. >> it was tightened up in around 2010, 2011. and so -- >> but that's -- >> i would be more than glad to talk to you about this. >> absolutely, i would love to

do so, because as i said earlier, traffic crashes with trucks are up 56% since 2010. another question. the state of texas recently invested millions in a new state of the art center for infrastructure renewal at texas a&m university. this focuses on all aspects of infrastructure renewal. and from new materials to workforce development to cyber security, can you speak to your agency's strategic plan for engaging with industry and academia to bring innovation and sufficiently trained manpower to our nation's infrastructure agenda, specific your agency's plan to partner with comprehensive groups to ensure innovation and sufficiently train manpower and fuel our infrastructure investments of the future? >> these transportation centers, research centers and universities, all across the country, are very helpful.

i'm afraid the secretary of energy has beaten you to this particular point. he has been pushing this point with texas a&m for quite a while. so we are very much aware of it. we're trying to work with the energy department. >> excellent. >> we will also work with you as well on this. >> excellent, thank you, madam secretary. because our energy secretary is an alumni of texas a&m. thank you. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i appreciate the argument you made there. i think this eld debate shouldn't be about the technology, it's about the rest time, it's about -- the police don't say sleep at a certain time but truckers can figure it out. again, with this technology today, we can probably know exactly when somebody is resting and not resting. i think the technology is there

to let us accomplish that. mr. hoffman is recognized. >> the ranking member overrode me. >> we're always getting confused with each other. >> better news for me than for you, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and madam secretary, thank you for joining us here today. i want to ask you about the capital investment grant program. this is something congress appropriated $2.4 billion for in fiscal year 2017. these federal dollars were intended to build new transit investments selected by local communities, projects under this promise have been reviewed, highly rated, and are in many cases awaiting your approval. i wonder, madam secretary, if you would agree with me that since congress has spoken, creating this program, funding this program, that unless and until the program is ended, it

is your legal responsibility to carry it out? >> yes, absolutely. >> thank you. because in my district, we've got a project that we're very proud of. it's the sonoma marin area rail transit program or s.m.a.r.t. it has been moving ahead with a regional rail system funded almost entirely by sales taxes and other local and regional funding sources. it opened in august 2016 with a fully operational positive train control system. at a time when we are focused a lot on rail safety and positive train control, this is a project that we can all celebrate and be proud of. ing it arguably the safest little railroad in america and a real extraordinary success story. the only problem is it's been waiting for months for funding under a small starts grant to be distributed. this is a grant that was previously awarded.

and although your agency has issued a no prejudice letter, we have not been able to get that funding distributed. we talk a lot here about projects that are shovel ready. we talk about the burden of permitting and environmental review. this is a project where everything is ready, in fact the shovels are already working, it's under construction. but for reasons we still don't understand, we just can't get those funds distributed. so i wanted to bring this to your attention, madam secretary, as an example of infrastructure that everybody thinks can and should move forward but it has the potential to be derailed, and i understand that positions are still being filled and some of the other challenges we've heard about here today. but would you agree with me, a project like this that is really right down the line, the kind of thing we want to support, the kind of thing that should get its funds distributed, deserves your attention and support in a moment like this? >> i will take a look at that

project and see where it is at this point. >> thank you. that's much appreciated. and that's all i had for you, madam secretary. so i yield the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. i recognize myself for five minutes. you weren't here. madam secretary, thank you very much for being here. and i want to pass on accommodations from the state of louisiana secretary of transportation and development, who has been through dozens of disasters over the last several years who said that your outreach activities related to some of the 2017 disasters was far better than any other administration that they've dealt with. so i want to thank you for that. the state of louisiana, like many states, has a lack of investment in infrastructure. i think they've had some prioritization problems and other things over several years. i'm curious, with the administration's proposal, infrastructure proposal, what

recommendations you would make to a state like louisiana that already is suffering financial challenges, deficits. what recommendations you make to them to ensure their ability to fairly compete for some of the infrastructure dollars that are available when we're already having financial problems. >> louisiana is a state with a lot of -- it's a rural state, obviously, except for the major cities, new orleans. there's an actually a title within the -- there is a proposed provision within the guidelines that have been passed forward that rule america will come under a different provision and it will be formula grant, basically. and this >> thank you, and secretary wilson made mention of the governor and how they're prevent of that. they also have cities like baton rouge, shreveport and other areas that have more sizable populations. my hometown of baton rouge which only has a population of approximately 30,000 people, if i recall correctly, we were recently rated as having the

13th worst traffic in the united states and 106th worth traffic in the world. this is the town of baton rouge with, again, approximately 200,000 people in the city. you and i spoke a few weeks ago about the fact that we have the only place in the united states where the interstate system funnels down to one lane. anybody who is thinking about that idea, it's an awful one, please don't replicate it. it certainly contributes to most of the traffic. the solution there is going to be a new bridge among other investments. when you're looking at probably over a billion dollars. so the rural program is good for much of our state. but when you get into these metropolitan areas, i don't think it's really going to fit or address some of the solutions there. >> so the rural -- so the rural areas is one part. then the other parts, for example, like the major cities, new orleans, baton rouge, it's going to be up to the state and local governments as to how they want to package and prioritize the transportation projects that

they view as most important. and they would package that, send that up to the federal -- to the department of transportation. or it can be to whatever else, if it's water, energy, whatever, it would go to the other departments. and then there would be a process by which targeted investments would be evaluated and ultimately i guess grants given. >> thank you. i want to make sure as we move forward on this that we continue to have discussions and understand the implications as a former implementer of large scale infrastructure projects, i do think it's important that both the state and federal government relay to one another expectations in terms of budgets and give us the appropriate time to adapt or prepare for those additional demands. i know that much of the work that i historically had done with the corps of engineers, it was a very difficult partnership because they would come in one year and provide funding, then we would have zero funding for a number of years following. the predictability of funding

and making sure we convey to federal and non-federal partners expectations and giving appropriate time for budget planning is i think a really important component of this proposal. one other thing, madam secretary, that i want to relay to you, and i know you've commented to some degree during today's hearing, we need to make sure that we don't come in and put good money on top of bad. the chairman made note a few minutes ago about the fact that some of the rail lines don't want to see federal investment because by complying with federal standards you're going to be doubling the cost of projects. in some cases i think it can be even higher than that. i know there's been some talk about looking at the appropriate trigger to trigger federal projects in allowing for states to use their own surrogate process to respect the environment, address worker wages, and other important priorities. i want to ensure that as we positive forwamove forward, that we're paying attention to those types of efficiencies. if we're putting in additional

federal dollars on top of an inefficient project development delivery system, that's not yielding taxpayers the results they deserve. i'm not sure if you want to comment on project efficiencies in the remaining seconds. >> you actually make a very good point, and we actually are in the process of dealing, for example, with nebraska on letting them take hold of the permitting process. there's no devolution, there is no dilution at all. but certain states have applied and we are working with them. so that's a very good point, thank you. >> thank you, madam secretary. now i'm going to yield five minutes to the real gentleman from new york, sean patrick maloney. >> if i had a nickel for every time i've heard that. secretary chao, it's wonderful to be with you. thank you, mr. chairman. and i apologize, i had to step out earlier. so if some of this has been covered, i hope you'll bear with me. but can you confirm for me that the gateway project in new york was listed as the number one

project on the trump administration's priorities list? d do i have that right? >> i don't think so. >> you don't think so? >> i don't think there's a list. >> i think you identified major projects of national significance and it was the number one project. but stipulating the importance of the project for a minute, you would agree with me it's an important project? >> we want to work with the states. the issue is how to fund it and what the proportion of shares are. >> right. so "the washington post" reported, secretary chao, that president trump recently personally requested that speaker ryan block the federal funding for the gateway project in the omnibus spending package. what can you tell us about that? is that true? >> i read it in the newspapers just like you did. >> right. my question was, is it true. >> it probably is. because -- >> can you tell us why the president is seeking to block funding? >> i think you need to ask the white house on that. >> secretary chao.

excuse me. >> i'll be more than happy to explain it if you let me, i've said that numerous times to the new york/new jersey delegation. apparently my answers are not good enough. >> yeah, well, i think it's fair to say that it's not good enough, to come before congress and say you have to ask the white house. >> there's no agreement between new york/new jersey and the federal government. >> my question was much more narrow. my question was is the president of the united states personally intervening with the speaker to kill this project. >> the president -- yes. the president is concerned about the viability of this project and the fact that new york and new jersey have no skin in the game. they need to step up and bear their fair share. they are two of the richest states in the country. if they absorb all these funds, there will be no other funds for the rest of the country. >> thank you for confirming that. and is it also the case that the administration has rejected the 50/50 partnership developed by the obama administration -- >> i may be wrong -- >> excuse me, if i could ask my

question, ma'am, thank you. proposed to eliminate cig funds, proposed to eliminate amtrak funds, tried to block all omnibus funding and now with your confirmation threaten other lawmakers with the loss of their project and ask the speaker personally to kill it. so is it fair to say that the states aren't doing enough when this is the administration's sorry record on this project? >> sir, that is your characterization. it takes me too much time to have to answer every single one of those misstatements. >> mr. chairman, how much time do i have remaining? >> what was the question? >> how much time do i have remaining? >> 200 -- 200. two minutes and four seconds. >> madam secretary, you may have my remaining two minutes if you can do your best to explain why the president of the united states is killing the most important infrastructure project certainly in the northeast, probably in the country, and why it has actively undermined efforts of the previous

administration to work out the very issues you are addressing. why is this project being killed personally by this president? >> that is your -- those are your words, not mine. if you want the president's stance, please go to the white house. there is no such agreement. the previous administration made no commitment except at a political rally, in the heat of a campaign. there is no documentation evidencing any commitment. there is no pending application on the nine projects that you collectively call gateway. the career staff rated this project as not eligible for federal funding because the state and local government have put in 5% in one, zero percent in the other. that's not how these projects are financed. one of the projects is thinking about applying for a tifia loan. they're taking that loan and

making it their part, the state is taking our loan and using it as their equity. that's like if you have -- you're getting a mortgage and you have to put 20% down as your equity, you go out and you get a second loan, and you call that second loan your equity. there are certain guidelines in which these loans are put together. as an example, if you look at the purple line in maryland, it's 38% federal grants, 33% tifia loan, 20% state, 9% of the private secretary. i-66, right here in virginia, the private sector putting 42%. >> ma'am, i'm familiar with how the tifia program works. >> 25% is public activity bonds with no federal funding. >> yes, i understand those comparisons. i'm also struck by something you said which is that we cannot ask you about the administration's positions in this room? >> no, you can. >> but i have to ask the white

house about whether they support the gateway project, i understood you correctly on that? >> yes. >> can you explain why? >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> that's how it works. no, that's how it works. i don't speak for another person unless i'm there personally. >> i thank the gentlelady, i thank the gentleman. mr. schmucker is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, thank you for being here. thank you for your leadership and the administration, the president's leadership in advancing an infrastructure package that is so important to our nation's economy. i also would like to thank you for the three-year lookback provision that specifically helps a state like pennsylvania. we just recently increased the wholesale gas tax and provided additional revenue. in fact i would like to talk a little bit about that if i have time. first, a question. i had sent a letter to you last

year, in june of 2017, regarding the administration's position on the use of project labor agreements on highway projects that are receiving federal dollars. it's important to me, important to my district, because we live in a state with project labor agreements have been used to exclude great companies and exclude many folks in the workforce from participating in jobs and the letter i sent in june was a response to one specific project where that had occurred. someone from your department had replied, september 7th, i have a letter here that says the u.s. department of transportation is currently reviewing the policy on the use of plas on federally funded projects issued in 2009 and said would keep us posted. so i would like to ask you for an update on that review, and on the administration's policy on

the use of project labor agreements on federally funded projects. >> i'm actually very familiar with project labor agreements having been the former secretary of labor. i think actually our response back is not totally correct, because we basically have to coordinate with the white house and also with the department of labor on that particular provision. but having said that, let me try to get some clarity for you on it. as far as i know, no decision has been made. >> i was pleased to see in your proposal the recognition of the need for individuals for the workforce essentially to do the work that will be required in the project. you have one particular section on page 53 that talks about empowering workers. and you specifically talk about the need to allow workers with out of state skilled trade licenses to work in a particular

state. your reasoning for that, i think, is good. but it could very much be applied to what i'm talking about with project labor agreements. you talk about prevention out of state professionals. you could say preventing nonunion labor would reduce the speed of these projects, delaying the effect of the economic benefit they provide, would increase the cost of the project by artificially limiting the number of professionals available to work on these projects, provide flexibility to workers. couldn't have described better what we're talking about with project labor agreements, which really does artificially prevent 86% of the workforce available in the construction industry from working on these projects, and so would provide for more inefficient use of federal dollars. so we would really, really appreciate you making that a priority and establishing a policy that would prevent

project labor agreements on any project with federal funding. now, back to -- i have just a minute and 20 seconds. back to what we had done in pennsylvania, the chairman had mentioned this briefly. pennsylvania increased the wholesale or took the ceiling off the wholesale price for gas and really created an infusion of new dollars into an infrastructure, in our case mostly highways and bridges, that the public really understood the need for it. and i think the public does support additional funding for infrastructure when they understand that the state of the infrastructure and they understand the economic benefit. but i think it's important to talk about that. and i think, you know, all stakeholders involved, including the administration, really need to make the case for why this infrastructure funding and investment is so important.

i guess i would like to hear from you what your plans are in that regard, what the plans are of the department, and of the administration in terms of selling the infrastructure project to the public who needs it. >> well, it's certainly a very important part of the infrastructure. and it's usually coordinated out of the white house. there are 12 different agencies that are involved with all of this. that certainly should be done. >> again, thank you for your leadership on this, and i look forward to continuing to work with you. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, madam secretary, for being here today. last time you were here i told you a little bit about my congressional district. i'm kidding, you probably don't remember. >> i study all of your congressional districts. >> i represent the entire northwestern corner of the state of illinois. and it's mostly smaller towns, rural. it spans 7,000 square miles and

14 counties. i would like to talk a little bit about rural america as it pertains to infrastructure. and i really appreciate what congressman graves had brought up where he raised that states are already struggling to fund roads and bridges in our rural communities. so i was really happy that the administration made a decision to earmark -- earmark's not the right word but to have part of the funding in the plan dedicated to rural america. and so i know specifically the plan calls for distributing rural formula funds in part based on rural lane miles. and so states like illinois have plenty of rural roads. but also real needs in rural areas like drinking water systems, locks and dams, broadband, et cetera. i'm wondering why the administration believes that rural lane miles are a good way of allotting funds that are intended to be used for all

kinds of infrastructure, if you wouldn't mind filling me in a little bit on that. >> i don't really have an answer. that was kind of what the group came up with. and if you think that is not a right way to do so, we're very -- i'm very open. >> okay. okay. maybe we can -- we could put together a letter or we could put together some thoughts, happy to sit down with you about some of those other needs, and maybe a funding formula that makes sense for some of these small towns. >> the congress is going to have a chance to mark up its own bill. so the good news is, and i really want to emphasize this, we may have differences, but we're actually quite open. >> okay. >> so we want to work with you. if something doesn't make sense, the three-year lookback is another issue i've heard a great deal about. we're very open to, you know, how do we work with the congress on all of these. >> i really appreciate that. i just think when you're looking at rural america, there are a lot of needs and they are special needs that vary from urban america. so i really appreciate that offer to be able to work with you on that. and we'll take you up on that.

okay. question two. the plan the administration released says the rural formula would also be adjusted to reflect policy objectives. those were the words in the plan, policy objectives. i don't know if you know the answer to this, but wondering if you could add a little more clarity on what that means, by the policy objectives. >> we send principals up. we basically want to make sure that rural america has its own particular needs, and so we left it very vague. and again, it's an effort to -- aside from the formula which we thought was going to be an easy way to distribute funds, but if the congress doesn't agree with that, then we certainly can -- we want to revisit that if that does not make sense. with certain goals we would like to have greater economic development, more job creation, greater economic vitality, which is why broadband and, you know, veterans hospitals can be of

great help in providing that part of the infrastructure for rural america as well. >> okay. all right. i've got about a minute and a half. if we have time for this also. so the plan on -- is silent, to my knowledge, on applying federal protections like davis-bacon. i know in your opening statement you mentioned that the bill was a workforce -- has a workforce component. so i'm wondering, specific to davis-bacon, if the administration supports the application of davis-bacon on the infrastructure projects that will -- >> the administration certainly has not disallowed it. this is a hugely important issue. there are people against it. but i frankly don't see how a bipartisan bill can exist, come into being, without that provision. >> that's very good to hear. let me see.

so last question, then. locks and dams. and you might have addressed this a little bit ago, but my western border, not just of my congressional district but the entire state of illinois and up and down the mississippi river corridor, just severe needs. and wanting to -- if you can address at all your thoughts on the locks and dams system, how you see your department being involved with that, what you can do to help us move some of the needed improvements along in a way that's a little bit more expedient. >> i am so glad to say that is the army corps of engineers. there are lots of concerns always addressed on that. the chairman has a harbor maintenance fund which is a wonderful idea, which we should be replenishing and supporting to fulfill that purpose. >> okay. thanks, madam secretary. >> i thank the gentlelady. the gentleman is recognized.

>> thank you, madam secretary, for being here. i know it's been a long day. i would like to go back to some other questions and concerns. let me first off tell you i would look forward, if you're going to work with representative babin on the eld hours of service, that was my life in a previous life, i grew up in a trucking industry and ran one for many years. but i have a concern still on the answer that you gave on the livestock. the concern that i have is, the original request on the livestock was a waiver for five years. and that was permitted, that was done in september. now, you answered that we had given 90 days, 90 days, 90 days. is it possible that they can get the five-year? >> the second 90-day has not been given. the first waiver -- the first waiver is not the waiver -- there's a difference in term. one is a waiver, which is 90 days. one is an exemption. >> okay. >> we're evaluating --

>> -- five years? >> exemptions, five years. there are very strict criteria upon which that can occur. i look forward to discussing it with both of you and others who are concerned. >> i would like to hear on the criteria, and the reason why i would like to hear on the criteria, because we know the concerns we have with livestock, you can naturally figure that out, okay? when you're moving livestock, they don't care what the computer says, they're going to live and die and have good time and bad time in the back end of a vehicle being moved from point "a" to point "b" and cause a lot of trouble and concerns for what we're trying to deal with. we did grant the exemption, the five years as an exemption, for the motion picture industry. why did we give that to the motion picture industry and what comparison was used for that as opposed to livestock? >> until this was brought up to

my attention, i didn't even know that waiver had been given. it's been explained to me. i don't quite understand it. >> okay. >> so we understand the concerns of congressman babin and yourself and many others. i actually have a confirmed pas, presidential senate confirmed, ray martinez, let me send him to your office and let him hear firsthand your concerns with this issue because his office would be the one issuing the waiver or the exemption. >> that's all we can ask for, thank you very much for that. i have another direction i want to go. when the administration rolled out and talked about its proposals for our infrastructure proposals, it was kind of silent. originally in the campaign, the president was kind of silent with buy america.

what is your thoughts on the buy american language being in there? >> very much, of course, in support. because the president has made this very, very clear. so there are a number of other abiding authorities that are ongoing and existent. these are overriding authorities and they will prevail. >> i'm bouncing all over the place, i'm sorry for that, these are questions that came up with other people, when you're this far down in the pecking order, you have to add things and change things around. earlier on we were talking about the tiger grant and the infra grant. when you gave an answer you said that it has now been directed to a new department or new area of your department. >> yes. >> and so that does not allow

them to work on both at the same time. is that correct? >> it's a capacity issue. >> okay. >> so traditionally these grants are processed through the modes, either federal transit, or federal highways, faa. but in the f.a.s.t. act, it was thought that a multimodal, intramodal approach would be best. so they didn't know where to put it. so they didn't put it in highways, they didn't put if in transit. they didn't put it in these modes which have a distribution system for processing these grants. instead, they gave it to the policy office, which by its very name, it's not an operational office. it's a policy office. so we've had to gear up, stand up an organization to be able to administer these two grant projects -- programs. >> one more question before it runs out. you said we ran through the

tiger already. how quick -- >> we hope it comes out this week. >> but the infra? >> we'll switch right to that, hopefully june, early summer. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. i recognize mr. carson for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. thank you, madam secretary. madam secretary, the administration contends the procurement process is broken and that this is a major factor as to why the faa hasn't made more progress with next gen. madam secretary, what steps can the department take today to improve the procurement process, and what statutory burdens or impediments are slowing the transition to next gen to air traffic control? >> the faa doesn't have the follow the procurement that they carved out. but they continue to follow it. i think there are fears about litigation. so that it takes the faa a great -- a very long time to get new equipment.

and i have already -- i already have 15 -- not me, this administration, but there have been recently, in the last four or five years, eight years maybe, 15 i.g. reports criticizing the next gen project and its progress. so it's a big concern. >> and lastly, like everyone here who is concerned about their district, there's been a proposal that suggests the elimination of funding for already approved capital improvements like the red line in indianapolis. there's been funding for 2017 already appropriated. yet local officials in my district are concerned about the unexplained delays in releasing these funds. madam secretary, indianapolis has two bus rapid transit projects awaiting appropriate

funds, the red line and the purple line. we're wanting to know what the holdup is and when will the administration end the delays and objections to transit and approve these projects? >> well, we don't like delays and we don't intend to delay. there has been a delay. let me take a look at that. i am not aware of that. >> thank you, ma'am. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, secretary, for being here today. and enduring what you have to with some of what goes on around here. let me narrow down, i was pleased to work with mr. babin last year on the eld issue. i appreciate the comments of several of my colleagues here, mr. basta and others on the issue of eld. it's one thing for washington several years ago to legislate elds, it will be great, everybody will love them, and indeed that has worked out for a

lot of folks, larger outfits that have the ability to afford and train many drivers on that. but we again down again to one size doesn't fit all. you have unique single carriers, mom and pop, whatever you want to call it, and industries that it doesn't always adapt well too, with agriculture and livestock. i great appreciate that there has been that exemption done so far for the 90 days. but we're coming up on march 18th here, where if nothing is done to further that exemption or, you know, have the waiver and get to an extension status, then march 19th, there will be a lot of hollers that have no way to do this right. we come down to the unique situation of hauling livestock, or we can talk about hazardous materials, but livestock, these are animals, on the hoof, in a trailer. and because of unknown conditions -- unknowable conditions, traffic, weather, what have you, they have to get

from "a" to "b." some of those are long hauls when we talk about livestock processing. much of this has to go on in the midwest, long hauls we're talking about. so yes, i agree, i saw several people shaking their heads. hours of service is a problem. we need flexibility on this, it really works for the drivers and people striving to do this and do it well. i would like to ask you please, really, really look at -- and mr. bras brought up the motion picture association has a five-year exemption now. my understanding is they do a really good job on the records of duty status so they don't need the eld. and so it's also well-known that the livestock haulers, these are well-trained individuals, they're hauling very valuable commodities that are perishable, they're animals. they're very well-trained and they have a tiny, tiny

percentage of accidents. much lower than the average. so we have to look at that, given that good record, they should be able to look at a similar exemption as motion picture, at least for the next two weeks, they'll wake up on the 19th if there's not an additional waiver done, of being either outside the law or endangering their animals or even themselves, they'll have to do some things. let me ask, can we please look at, in the short term, an additional waiver but a really good, hard look at a five-year type exemption similar to the motion picture industry, which i would submit that the agricultural products have a heck of a lot more value than some of the products coming out of hollywood, given the oscars the other night. >> i'm very sympathetic to this issue. we're very much aware of the

march 18th deadline, we just had a meeting on it yesterday. as you pointed out, the hours of service is the issue. and we are very much bound, constrained by legislation. >> we'll work on that side, madam secretary. but for the short term, this is what we need. i'm sorry, please go on. >> so let me have also ray martinez and cathy coudreau, we have two people who should be paying a visit to all of you and get your input and explain the difficult situation we find ourselves and how we go forward. >> i would be happy to help put together a group of my colleagues on that and we would have a good productive opportunity to speak about that. and i do appreciate it. >> we will act before march 18th. >> okay, good. that's a commitment that we can at least find some breathing room for these folks that are, again, have mere days left. because what we're looking at with livestock is very unique. and i think that with the 90

days, it's very valuable to them. i had another thought on this as well, hazardous materials, i've had people speak with me about that that are in that business too. we are coming down on an hours of service problem. i hope longer term we can work with you on that and get the flexibility as long as we can get our own nonsense of politics around here beyond that. i'll finish on this. motor carrier safety, to my knowledge, has only had maybe two meetings with folks on this. and i know part of the intent originally was that there would be the opportunity to have this education and back and forth. i don't think there's been nearly enough with that with motor carrier safety administration to have them here firsthand, better than i can illustrate, what they're dealing with on the livestock and ag and other things. thank you for listening on that, i appreciate it. >> i thank the gentleman. i now recognize ms. wilson for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman shuster,

for holding this important hearing. welcome back, madam secretary. as you know, u.s. seaports are economic engines that drive growth for the nation. u.s. seaports activity generates more than $320 billion a year in federal, state, and local revenue. could you please address how the president's infrastructure plan will help seaports continue to grow and support the nation's economy? specifically how it will help facilitate the modernization of the nation's shipping channels. >> the ports are part of the infrastructure. so they are a part of the proposals that will be address by the local and state governments. we're not -- so they're not excluded. >> okay. so you plan to fund projects that have received no allocations of federal funds to date that put forth their own

money as they partnered with cities and states like the dredge in miami? >> the budgets for the transportation department will still be ongoing. so whatever monies are there for highways, transit, rail, ports, are still there. it's the infrastructure money is on top of that. and so the ports have access to tiger grants, they have access to these maritime grants, even. and the infra grants as well. >> okay. >> on top of the regular funding that the department puts out. >> good. okay. along with our nation's roads and bridge system, the majority of our public schools are now reaching the end of their w40 t 50-year life cycle. public schools are the second

largest public infrastructure investment. but investments in school infrastructure have lagged. sadly, these infrastructure plans make no mention of public schools despite the fact that the president has talked about it. do you feel school facilities as a part of -- should be a part of a comprehensive infrastructure investment package? >> one of the congressmen asked about the hardening of the schools and what is the federal role in that. and so i addressed on how devastating the recent tragedies have been to our nation. and i said that i will bring that concern back to the white house and to the president. he's obviously very concerned about this issue. i don't know how this fits. but clearly the hardening of our schools is an issue that was discussed in the televised

meeting that the president had with the survivors, the relatives. >> what i'm talking about is buildings, classrooms, laboratories, equipment, learning labs, updating old buildings, not necessarily just a hardening. is that something that -- >> i don't know -- sorry. >> is that something that you would bring up as far as a comprehensive infrastructure investment package, schools, aging schools that are 50 and 60 years old? >> there are 12 agencies that are involved in this. i'll be more than glad to bring it back to the white house. >> okay. thank you. my mantra in congress has been jobs, jobs, jobs, since the first day. and i was pleased to learn that the administration's infrastructure plan contains some workforce development proposals, including expanding

pell grants to cover short term certificate programs and increasing apprenticeships. however, the details were scant. can you elaborate on the administration's plan to >> we're actually facing a very tight market. to build an infrastructure is quite a skilled -- it is a skill. a trade skill that we are -- we don't have enough of. which is why the work force development and retraining and training provision was put into the infrastructure proposal. is details are to be fleshed out in construction with the congress. we sent principals rather than legislative language in a show of i think deference and also partnership with the hill that we want to work on these things. >> thank you. chairman schuster, i have additional questions. can i submit them?

>> yes. >> for follow-up because we are out of time. thank you so much. >> thank, miss wilson. mr. westerman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. thank you secretary for your leadership and for the administration's focus on infrastructure. hopefully we can work together to get a good package out for the country. i represent a rural district in arkansas with a lot of infrastructure needs. i know we have to look at all methods in funding infrastructure projects. there's really not any public partnershi partnerships or toll systems that would work in arkansas but as we look at one particular project, interstate 49 that passes through my district, this is part of an interstate system that reaches from the gulf to canada. interstate 49 goes from new orleans up to kansas city and then there are two others

interstate routes on up to the canadian border. but if you look at that whole transportation core doer, the only part that's not finished is interstate 49 in western arkansas. it's not just critical for my district and our state but critical for that whole region of the country and i would say the whole country as we see more goods moving back and forth to the gulf and to canada. so my question on that is how do we -- when we get into these infrastructure projects, how do we make the case for the importance of that project, is that one that you're aware of? and is there -- >> most of -- recognizing the unique needs of rural america, the infrastructure bill has a provision that addresses infrastructure in rural areas. that's about 20% of the federal

funds and it will be done on a formula basis. 90% -- 8 wi0% -- 90%. >> the 50 billion -- >> 40 billion would be the formula. >> okay. >> and there was some disagreement as to how that formula would go. and we're very open to discussing it. >> yeah. so we would want to work with you on the formula and how that affects rural areas. there is also another interstate 6 of 9 that goes from houston to detroit. there is less of that interstate system that is completed but i know there's parts of it that go through mississippi, tennessee and kentucky and i would advocate strongly for interstate 69 and those other states because until the whole corridor is complete, it doesn't do a lot of good for the areas that could benefit from it. also, i know this might be an

area that from some of your previous comments, but on the waterways, the arkansas system is in need of repair. there is a 12-foot project that would take a lot of traffic off of the system. they have self-imposed 45% increase on their fuel tax. how do we get more attention and funding on these inland waterways? >> thank you for bringing it to my attention. a lot of it is the army corps of engineers. it doesn't even go through the maritime administration. so there used to be a deputy administrator and i come back 26 years later and i don't know where that position went. it is important and we need to talk more about it.

we would be glad to work with you on it. >> maybe we can work together with the corps to make sure -- you know, some of the structures outlived their useful life and one failure on one of the 13 locks and dams could shut down a lot of river traffic, disrupt the economy and put more trucks out on the interstate. so i know you've got some big country, you've got a lot of things to look over and i just want to offer that if there is any way that me or my office can help, please reach out to us. and thank you again. >> thank you. >> thank the gentleman p. recognized for five minutes.. recognized for five minutes.. recognized for five minutes. [ inaudible ] >> there it goes. >> all right. my light bulb is out. i apologize, madam secretary. i want to start by saying one of the reasons i wanted to be on this committee is this

reputation is being bipartisan and certainly you understand the nature of bipartisan approach when it comes to this country's infrastructure. i fear with this particular initiative and to be honest, madam secretary, with the tone of this hearing, we're doing great damage to that history of bipartisanship. that is just an observation. and as an admonition, maybe to all of us, that we should refocus on what i think was historically the spirit of this committee and i'll go back, i remember when my dad was a republican member of the massachusetts state legislature and he add close friendship with govern governor volpe who became the verse administrator of the federal highway administration and second secretary of transportation. he worked for president eisenhower, president nixon and president ford in those positions. p he actually advocated for raising taxes because he knew he today raise taxes and develop real revenue as well as making

improvements. and i agree with you, there are regulatory and administrative improvements we can do. i look at states, like california, where i'm from, we are trying to copy the department of transportation in washington. minnesota and massachusetts. i've tried to engage with some of your staff as to how we could use the laboratories of invention at the state level in that regard. i do think there are opportunities. however, i think you have to be realistic about what the actual benefit will be. so my two questions, first is about, what certainly seems to be representing a largely suburban district in the bay area where 70% of my constituents travel out of my district to get to work where our congestion has increased by 80% in just five years. and in the bay area and in 2015 and enormous pressure on an infrastructure and we are hoping for support from the administration in this regard. i see this as more of an attacks

on urban and suburban commuters. it certainly seems to prejudice towards rural communers or rural users and on the history of sp-1 as my colleague from southern california pointed out would you look at, just a little history in how i was involved in that before i came to congress in both the assembly and senate. in that past it had bipartisan support. the license fee and one of the key supporters of that was senator canella from northern san joaquinn valley, the same area that my friend represents, so he voted for that because he knew he todhad to identify reve. for his suburban commuters to reach in for silicon valley and san francisco. my first question, and i'm going to give you these questions so you can use time to answer both of them is this seems like an attack on suburban commuters.

we have some of the largest super commutes in the bay area and d.c. in a northern virginia has similar large super commutes. people taking an hour and a half to two hours each way because of the cost of housing and other reasons to commute. there doesn't seem to be other than the requirement for those commuters to raise their open taxes, state and local taxes, to pay for this with very little support from the federal government. so first question is, could you answer that challenge or that perception, and the second one i think more important question i have is, you were quoted on large march 29 saying, and i read in quotes of 2017, the problem is the money raised by the permitting progress that hold up projects for years, even decades, risky investments, end quote. in 2016, the u.s. department of treasury found in a commissioned report, quote, a lack of public funding is by far the most

common factor hindering the completion of transportation and water infrastructure projects, end quotes. so my two questions are, answer the suburban urban seems like targeted lack of support, and then this your quote saying if we just had regulatory reform and permit reform but your department says the opposite. if you could answer those two questions, i would be appreciative. >> first of all, thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond. number one, you are phrasing it, and i say this with great respect and no intention to anger, that this is an attack on suburbia and it is not true. for years and years and decades, and in rural america has been ignored and forgotten and so

this -- i should not have singled him out because i will probably anger them. but some of these projects that we are talking about are in the richest areas of the country. and we have the rest of the country subcy diedisidizing the. my quote about the problem is not funding, i think the problem is not funding. if we allow the private sector to fully participate and in the year hence we have certainly discovered there are members of congress who don't want to rely too much on public-private partnerships. if they don't want to rely too much on public-private partnerships then funding is a problem. allowing the private sector, allowing to come in and invest in public infrastructure was a way to address the funding gap. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

thank you, madam secretary. i just say i'm disappointed in your response. you are making this more of partisan issue than it should be. >> my background has never been partisan. but it seems like when i say something the people don't like it hear bb i'm accused of partisanship. i think that is highly unfair. >> thank you, gentle lady. >> you came to beaumont which is in my district, which is not partisan. thank you for doing that. we appreciate that. that is the week my dad died and so i couldn't be there. i hope you come back. moving more through the port of omaha than any other port in the country, i want to read something general millie said in his first major address. he said readiness for ground combat is and will remain, readiness is the ability to respond to any situation at any time with effective force

requires not only trained troops but in effective transportation intrastructure capable of supplying needs whenever and wherever they operate. it goes on to say that one of the critical port capacity, of course that's the army, so i would argue that beaumont is extremely important from national -- the port of omaha, from a national security perspective. in the issue of tiger grants, do you think, madam secretary, that maybe when tiger grants were considered that national security and readiness of general millie talked about should be consider in awarding tiger grants? >> i don't know the answer to that. i'm not aware of that. so let me take a look at it. >> let me say that our area was ground zero for harvey flooding. the first three coastal counties of texas. jefferson county. galveston county and southern half of bezoera county.

we have two ports in jefferson county. both are among the strategic sea ports, recognized sea ports, port and port arthur. neither port in south texas, when it comes to federal grants, they've just been ignored over the years. so my question is, you know, could you take a look at that. the waterway, those two ports are on, is the second largest in the gulf only second to the mississippi river. one of the most vital waterways in the nation, 60% of the nation jet fuel produced in our district. almost 90 something percent of the nation's l & g supports a waterway. it is huge when it comes to national security and even to energy. noting the fact that there's been a lot of harvey destruction, there on the gulf coast of texas, we would like to see you all have a policy of awarding tiger grants where you

don't just put one tiger grant in one area but in a region. maybe can you consider more than one tiger grant and maybe you might even consider the fact of the devastation from the recent hurricane harvey and others. i realize there are others around the country. of course, this is my district. so we would love to see you consider that maybe usdot should provide assistance through the tiger and even the infraprograms for the regions infrastructure. applications and geographic locations impacted by natural disasters, we believe, should not be restricted to just one award p per geographic location. much of the southeast area, not just jefferson county but galveston and port of shreveport h hit hard by harvey.

we would like it tato talk to se in your office. so vital to readiness. and we would like to have someone in your office to reach out to so we could have that discussion. would you be open to having your staff look at it and number two getting back with us on it? >> sure. we would be glad to set that up. >> that's easy enough. i appreciate you being here because harvey was very, very nonpartisan. you guys helping us would help everybody. we appreciate you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, gentleman. >> thank you, mr. chair and thank you for having the hearing and secretary chao, nice to have you here and back in government service. thank you for your past service. in 2016 i wrote to secretary fox in support of the tennessee department of transportation application for what is called a fast lane grant for roadway improvements along the lamar avenue, not named for lamar alex and are but strongly supported by lamar alexander. are you familiar with the lamar

after m avenue quarter by chance? >> i'm not. >> not surprised that you aren't because it is a local issue, but it is very important nationally as well. memphis, as you may well know, is not only known as the basketball school that occasionally beats louisville but also america's distribution hub. we are hope to global headquarters offed headquarters fedex. gray airport. five class 1 railroads and one of the largest inland ports along the mississippi river. in short, memphis has one of the most significant freight corridors and substantial to the cargo network in the national economy. there is severe congestion along lamar avenue where there is a program with s & s railroad and modal corridor and the lack of sufficient roadway there, trucks are just backed up forever and bad traffic but also bad for the truckers to be able to get their cargo to the bnsf railroad and

be loaded on to trains. it hurts that transportation of american goods, it hurts the bnsf corridor and memphis international airport, and second busiest in the united states. this is important to the nation. according to the federal highway administration, the multimodal freight network there supports millions of u.s. jobs and supports 55 million tons of jobs worth over $49 billion daily. system strains and efficiencies cost $1 trillion annually. 7% of the u.s. economic output. madam secretary at beginning of the new administration, agency revamped existing programs in the fast lane program now known as infragrant program. what is the general purpose or mission of infragrants and how would lamar avenue corridor proposal fit into that? >> i don't know because i'm not in the processing or the deliver -- there are many, many

several cuts to all of these grants. so i'm not aware of that. i think the infragrants are recast to add in economic development as one of the criteria as well. let me take a look at that. and i will be more than glad to get back to you. >> thank you. senator corker and grant are both supportive. and governor haslam. it came from the department of transportation who made the request. is there anyone you know offhand or staff that can advise us on possibly making a more compelling case for the future consideration of this grant? >> let me check on the status and i'll be more than glad to get back to you. >> thank you. >> and you should also know, some of the concerns are, sure. >> and then -- >> i have -- i have questions here at the end. i'm surprised this hasn't been asked yet. what is your opinion of the ncaa's infractions on the university of louisville's basketball program? >> i'm in such big trouble.

it's been very sad. it's been really sad. >> was the ncaa wrong to punish louisville like they did, or were they right? >> i hope i can get a pass on that, too. very sad for the whole community. >> they did it to memphis first c callaperri. so then you're second. i see the banner. and you will see it in the center because it'll be there, even though it hasn't been there. >> there are wonderful young men playing. >> good luck in the tournament. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. how recognizing ms. platski for five minutes. >> thank you, secretary chao, for being here this afternoon with us. i want it thank you for come together virgin island and puerto rico and all of the places you visited that have been affected by the 2017 hurricane season. there's been much discussion in

this hearing about, in particular, the 50 billion rural infrastructure program. one of the questions i have is that the rural program funds will be set aside for tribal infrastructure and territorial infrastructure with the remainder available to the states. now the u.s. territories have been subjected to substantial infrastructure funding cuts over the last 25 years. while the 50 states and district columbia have received increases. these cuts have resulted in deterioration of our public highway system, enormous damage to our ports. i know you've ban frequent visitor to the u.s. virgin islands and i know our governor and others have spoken with you about that issue. how much of the 50 billion in rural infrastructure funding does the administration expect to set aside for territorial

infrastructure and how might that set aside for territorial insf infrastructure be apportioned for the territories? >> that's a very good question. i don't know. and i certainly think that your concerns are very reasonable and so we have worked on other things in the past. especially in the aftermath of the hurricanes. so we look forward to working with you on that as well. >> i would appreciate that. because as you know, and you may have seen and others in your agency have also seen, that much of the damage that we sustain particularly with roadways right on abutting the waterways, that there was a substantial deterioration occurred because we did not have funding over protracted period of time to support our highway system. and that increase would really be important to us. we've experienced enormous decreases over the years. along with the other

territories, guam, northern mary annas and puerto rico as well. do you know how rural is going to be defined for purposes of the rural transportation infrastructure program? will it be based on lane miles or based on population? >> i think that's a very good question as well. there's a certain definition to that. and i've been asked this and i have forgotten it. >> thank you. >> and will your agency be the primary lead in administering that or will agriculture or others? how will that be determined? who will determine how that funding is distributed? >> a as of now primarily agriculture. >> thank you. good for me, i sit on agriculture as well. i will tag team you guys on that one. >> but you know, as we talk about these things, the last thing i wanted to talk with you about was resiliency. does the white house infrastructure plan include considerations particularly for

states and other areas to have found that the federal invest the on hazard mitigation has a 6 to 1 return on investment? working on resiliency is important for the fiscal responsibility of this nation. are there opportunities for new funding for new infrastructure to incentivize areas in resiliency? >> you make a very good point. as of now, i think if anything there is a bias toward building new structures rather than maintenance. >> as well as this federal program you were discussing, much of it is so invent advise local areas. i no he in pennsylvania they've expended all of their resources that the state level and local level to do the matching that's necessary for the federal government. in the virgin islands as well as puerto rico, i know that we are already a deficit budgets and so

it'll be really difficult for us to provide that match as well as are there mechanisms in your thought and the thought of the administration of the president and how we can add additional incentives to bring private investment to create public-private partnerships. >> u.s. virgin islands is part of the rural parts would be eligible for rural title and you will be -- the virgin island will be part of that and 40%, 40 billion of that will be formula. 10 billion will be competitive. we're currently doing it on a lemas basis which some don't agree with. >> thank you so much. >> thank you so much for being with us today. appreciate your frankness. again, there are some folks that will submit questions in writing

to you. we appreciate that response. thank you for taking the time and thank you for your public service. i ask for consent of the record remain open until such time as witnesses have provide answers to my questions that may be submitted to them in writing and hold that record over for 15 days for additional comments and information submitted by witnesses to include the record of today's hearing. the gentle lady from connecticut is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and again, thank you secretary chao. we appreciate yourer persistence and revilsilience under this ve long hearing. thank you for staying here to the end. we had a record participation of members which i think does underscore yes concerns but also deep design and commitment to get something done for the american people and we can assure you we want it figure out a way to get to yes with the

administration on something that will be good. >> our intent is absolutely the same. we may have differences, but let me please emphasize again, we want it work with congress in a bipartisan basis. >> thank you. >> and mr. chairman, i would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters from the following organizations to be included as today's hearing record. auto safety and several other safety advocates. its america. alabama rivers alliance and collection of other environmental advocates. rebuild america schools. a letter from the national league of cities. and natso. a letter from the new democrat co-liegs. coalition. >> without objection so ordered. with that, the committee stands adjourned. >> thank you.

c-span's washington journal live everyday with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning, florida democratic congresswoman

val demmings discusses election security and school safety and peterson institute's chad bao talks about president trump's trade policies. live from phoenix arizona for the next stop on the c-span bus 50 capitals tour. with arizona secretary of state reagan discussing security in her state. and be sure to watch washington journal each sunday for our special series "1968 american in turmoil" starting march 18. we la we look back 50 years that turbulent time, including vietnam war and a presidential election. senate intelligence committee holds a hearing on the process of security clearances for government officials. watch it live starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern here on c-span 3.

> the nation's