[Senate Hearing 113-573]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-573
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION: PROGRESS, CHALLENGES, AND NEXT
STEPS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 7, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
93-415 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking
BILL NELSON, Florida ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK WARNER, Virginia DAN COATS, Indiana
MARK BEGICH, Alaska TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TED CRUZ, Texas
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
JOHN E. WALSH, Montana
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
John Williams, General Counsel
David Schwietert, Republican Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 7, 2014...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Rockefeller................................. 1
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 4
Statement of Senator Boxer....................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 15
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 17
Statement of Senator Johnson..................................... 19
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 22
Statement of Senator Fischer..................................... 23
Statement of Senator McCaskill................................... 26
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 26
Statement of Senator Booker...................................... 30
Article dated May 5, 2014 submitted by Hon. Cory Booker
entitled, ``Clock Ticking on Hudson Crossings, Albany
Warns'' by Dana Rubenstein................................. 31
Statement of Senator Heller...................................... 33
Statement of Senator Scott....................................... 35
Statement of Senator Blunt....................................... 37
Statement of Senator Ayotte...................................... 40
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 45
Witnesses
Hon. Anthony R. Foxx, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Transportation................................................. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Anthony R. Foxx
by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 57
Hon. Edward Markey........................................... 63
Hon. Cory Booker............................................. 65
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 67
Hon. Kelly Ayotte............................................ 70
Hon. Deb Fischer............................................. 71
Hon. Roy Blunt............................................... 72
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
REAUTHORIZATION: PROGRESS,
CHALLENGES, AND NEXT STEPS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:31 p.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John D.
Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
The Chairman. All right. This hearing is going to come to
order, which, in view of the way that we've been up until now,
is actually asking quite a lot.
Mr. Secretary, we're incredibly happy to have you here. And
I'm going to have a few words to say but, before that, I want
to sort of buck up your spirits to know that there are some
people up here who are fighting for what you want and what we
need.
So I'll make my opening statements and I think Senator
Thune will be a few minutes late, but when he comes in he gets
to give his. Well, this is going to be a very, very important
conversation.
Until recently, this Nation was the global leader when it
came to building the greatest bridges, the greatest
interstates, the greatest tunnels and canals and ports and
railways. From coast to coast, we're reminded of those golden
days of innovation and energy and vigor and innovation and
investment that ultimately set our nation apart from the rest
of the world.
But those days of big ideas, bold ideas, bold investments
and preparing for the future seem to be behind us. This nation,
which once dared to dream, dared to lead, has retreated from
the legacy of our predecessors. And it's a shameful and sad
thing to observe. And it need not happen.
We've gotten into a rut. We're unable to pass long-term
funding transportation bills rooted in bold ideas. Instead,
we're now focused on the nickels and dimes of our deficit and
mainly because of the high political costs associated with
proposing any kind of revenue increases. In other words, you
know, win the election; that's what counts. Help the country;
well, yes, if you've got time that'd be good. But don't take
any chances on the election. That thinking is deep and thick in
this Senate and in this Congress. And it's wrong and it's bad.
It's humiliating for the individuals involved and for the
country as a whole, obviously.
Sadly, this short-sightedness has left us with a broken and
increasingly second-rate transportation system. I didn't
realize we were tenth in the world, overall. I just assumed we
were second or third or first, but we're not. This has left
commuters sitting in traffic for hours, daily, wasting precious
time. It has left us with shaky bridges that have compromised
the safety of our traveling public.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that I've
described this dismal state of our nation's infrastructure. I
gave a terrific speech yesterday in the Finance Committee, Mr.
Secretary, but you missed it. Nor is it the first time I've
expressed my dismay that we've grown accustomed to an ad hoc,
short-term approach to funding our nation's infrastructure. By
which I mean future from one inadequate funding bill to the
next without much care for the long-term implications of this
negligent way of governing.
Collectively, the Congress has shown neither the will nor,
the saddest part, the courage to put aside differences and work
to find a long-term solution. This hurts everyone; it impairs
commerce; it has soured our ability to do big things; it has a
bad effect on young people. You know, we talk all the time
about science, technology, engineering and math, and then we
don't fund anything which those things can feed into and our
ability to be a country that is innovating and investing and
building projects that would define our future. That's what we
were. That's what I grew up in in the 1960s and the 1970s, but
no longer. Not now.
Nations around the world have come to realize, just as we
once did, that in order to grow their economies and increase
competitiveness, they have to invest. And, yes, we did sort of
redo the Panama Canal. Are our ports ready for the bigger boats
that are going to come through the Panama Canal? No. But, we
glory in the fact that we did what Teddy Roosevelt did and
doubled its width and all the rest of it and that's sort of
like the end of the problem. No. That's the beginning of the
opportunity, except, we've done nothing with it.
So whether it's the Panama Canal or building high-speed
rail lines or adding capacity at ports, we all know the
statistics of the state of our infrastructure are about as bad
as it gets. And we know that and do nothing about it. We are
unwilling to pay for what we so desperately need.
Going forward, our economy, our global competitiveness and
the safety of the traveling public will continue to suffer
unless we change course almost immediately or as fast as can
possibly be done by a relatively inept Senate.
I'm a firm believer that the Federal Government has a huge
and critical role to play in the upgrading of our nation's
infrastructure. Who in heaven's name could dispute that? How do
you think the interstates got built? How do you think the
Appalachian Highways got built? How do you think bridges get
built? I mean, it's ridiculous. And when I say infrastructure,
of course, what comes to everybody's mind is roads. And they
don't think about ports. They don't think about other aspects
of all of this; trains and, all of that. They just think of
roads. Well, if we could do our roads, that'll be enough.
We need to lead. We need to create a coherent and unified
mission for our Federal surface transportation programs. And in
some places we need to grow those programs. This is not a
partisan issue. Oh, it's so easy to make things partisan. And
sometimes it's so stupid too, because it just isn't true. This
is a fundamental economic issue. It's about our future.
The Department of Transportation recently estimated that
the Highway Trust Fund will run out of money in August and need
an additional addition of general fund monies to get us through
the busy construction season. Well, this is just another
reminder of what we have already known, and that is what we
have been discussing for years: We need more money for our
infrastructure system. It's the only way we're going to begin
to solve our problems.
Now, they came up with this, what was this, new kind of
money, which came in and went out of style in about two weeks.
Bit something? What was it, Maria?
Bitcoins, yes. I mean, I don't know, maybe the Department
of Transportation can get into that business and pay for it.
But, otherwise, there's no substitute for something called
money.
My colleague and friend, Senator Boxer, has already
signaled that she is dead serious about passing a long-term
transportation bill and I intend to support her every single
step of the way. I consider nothing off the table.
It is my hope that all of our colleagues will put aside
their politics and their shortsightedness and join us in this
effort. And I don't mean to disparage everybody. I mean, there
are people in this room who'd do anything for more
transportation but there are too many who wouldn't.
Beyond dealing with repairs of our existing infrastructure,
we are experiencing a fundamental shift in the transportation
trends across the country. Vehicles are becoming more fuel
efficient, young adults continue to drive less and public
transportation ridership is at an all-time high. What this
means is that we also need to rethink our approach to
transportation investment. And it's not just all called roads
by definition of what I just said.
Congress, the Administration, the transportation community
and the American people need to put aside the politics. And I
don't mean Republican/Democrat so much as just that we can't
spend. We can only cut; we can't spend. Even if it's really,
really important; we can't spend anything. And part of that is
timidity. We've got to put timidity aside. We've got to be able
to break from the pack; do things which might take a couple of
points off of our current standing in the polls.
I, fortunately, am not running again. So I have no standing
whatsoever in the polls but I still make this speech.
None of the proposals, alone, will be the silver bullet for
our infrastructure needs but we can conclude that the status
quo is insufficient. The nation's transportation system should
be something that unites us, leads to growth in our economy and
creates jobs.
I'm glad to have Secretary Foxx here today to discuss the
Administration's proposal, which I applaud, that makes some
bold changes in how to look at and fund something called
``transportation at large.'' I was pleased the Administration
proposed significant new funding to keep the country moving
forward and to also allocate resources to where our
transportation system sorely needs those resources; such as
moving freight and improving rail service.
I look forward to our discussion today almost as much as I
do to the remarks of the Ranking Member and my esteemed
colleague.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing today.
I want to thank and welcome Secretary Foxx back to the
Committee. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you
the Administration's surface transportation proposal as well as
other matters.
There probably isn't anything that's more important in
terms of our competitiveness as a nation than maintaining and
improving our nation's infrastructure. And states like South
Dakota, where I come from, rely on a top-quality transportation
network to connect the vast distances between our communities
and to help deliver critical agricultural products and natural
resources via truck and freight rail to markets across the
country and around the globe.
Also important is the safety mission of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which not only conducts
vehicle safety research but also administers various grants to
keep motorists safe. While we are approaching the expiration of
the most recent surface transportation bill, or MAP-21, that
was signed into law just less than 2 years ago, like the
Chairman, I am looking forward to working with many of our
colleagues on both the Commerce Committee and also the Finance
Committee to ensure that we continue to have a robust surface
transportation program.
I'm glad the Administration has released its first ever
surface transportation reauthorization proposal last week,
especially in light of the anticipated shortfalls that are
facing the Highway Trust Fund.
As many in this room know, the Highway Trust Fund is
projected to become insolvent later this summer. This
shortfall, which is already being felt, will lead to delays in
highway and safety improvements and reimbursements to states
and to the construction sector.
This is particularly problematic for cold weather states,
such as South Dakota, that have a shorter construction season
and a limited window to make decisions regarding which projects
to select, bid, and ultimately begin construction.
As Congress works to reauthorize our Nation's highway
programs, the most important question we must answer is how we
will pay for the program going forward.
Since serving on the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee during TEA-21, to our efforts with
SAFETEA-LU, and most recently with MAP-21, I'm skeptical about
the financing proposals the Administration has put forward to
fund its $302 billion plan, especially the Administration's
reliance upon one-time revenues from so-called corporate tax
reform. This aspect of the plan is unlikely to secure broad
support in Congress and fails to provide a longer-term funding
solution for these vital programs.
I'm also concerned by the Administration's proposal to fund
additional programs, including new programs on passenger rail
and vehicle safety and an expansion of TIGER, through the
successor to the Highway Trust Fund. In a time of limited
revenue, it would seem to me unwise to make new promises
regarding programs that have the potential to divert funding
from the core mission of the Highway Trust Fund.
Nevertheless, there are some provisions I'm encouraged by,
including the fact that the Administration has recognized my
call for extending the deadline for Positive Train Control
implementation. As we've discussed previously in this
committee, delays at the Federal Communications Commission and
other unforeseen events since enactment of the PTC mandate in
2008, have prevented nearly all passenger and freight railroads
from moving forward on implementation of this technology.
Along with Senators Blunt, McCaskill and Pryor, I've
introduced legislation, which is supported by other members of
this committee, to extend the 2015 deadline in order to provide
all railroads with a realistic time-frame for full
implementation.
There are now 14 bipartisan co-sponsors of this
legislation, and I hope that our committee will address the PTC
issue, yet, this Congress.
Unfortunately, however, the Administration's proposal does
not include a straightforward extension of the 2015 deadline,
something that I think is necessary especially given the delays
at the FCC. I hope to see such an extension included in any
final bill reported out of the Committee and I look forward to
working with my colleagues and with the Administration on this
important issue.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for holding the
hearing and thank Secretary Foxx for being with us and for his
testimony and look forward to discussing with him further what
we can do to get a robust highway program up and running that
secures not only the near-term needs that we have but also
those that we have down the road well into the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Secretary Foxx, I would ordinarily call on you immediately,
but we have the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee who is sort of a big enchilada in this whole thing.
And she wants to say something I hope.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator, I'll just take 2 minutes. First, to thank all the
members of this committee who are really involved in helping us
resolve the problems we face and, of course, the secretary.
We're going bust in the trust fund in August and everybody
seems to realize this. And if that were to happen, our states
have already told us, every one of our states, that they will
stop funding any new projects. And so, it would bring about a
terrible economic situation for our businesses and our workers.
So what I want to tell you today is some good news. The
``Big Four'' of the EPW Committee, which consists of myself,
Senator Carper, Senator Vitter and Senator Barrasso, Senator
Fischer's a member, and there are some others that aren't who
are members, we've agreed on a proposal for a multi-year bill.
It's fiscally conservative in the sense that its current
spending plus inflation, we don't go ahead of ourselves there
because we have such a shortfall. It's $18 billion a year.
So we're going to have a press conference or a press
statement tomorrow. We will be putting our bill out at that
time. So I wanted to announce that because this committee,
under you leadership and Senator Thune, has a huge obligation
to write part of this bill; which doesn't cross on our
jurisdiction but you know the titles that you deal with. And
also, of course, the Banking Committee has jurisdiction and
also the Finance Committee has huge jurisdiction to figure out
a pay-for to find that shortfall.
So I just came here to thank you so much for doing this
hearing today because every one of us, in each committee, has a
lot of work ahead of us. And I will be there with you and
Senator Thune, on this committee and all the colleagues, trying
to reach a good agreement but quickly, because we don't have a
lot of time.
And the Administration's proposal, we're going over it to
see what we can get done in bipartisan way. And that's my
report. And I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from California
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing today. I would
like to welcome Secretary Foxx back to the Committee. We appreciate the
opportunity to discuss with you the administration's surface
transportation proposal as well as other matters.
Maintaining and improving our Nation's infrastructure is absolutely
vital to our country's economic prosperity. States like South Dakota
rely on a top quality transportation network to connect the vast
distances between our communities and to help deliver critical
agriculture products and natural resources via truck and freight rail
to markets across the country and around the globe.
Also important is the safety mission of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, which not only conducts vehicle safety
research, but also administers various grants to keep motorists safe.
While we are approaching the expiration of the most recent Surface
Transportation bill (MAP-21) that was signed into law just less than
two years ago, like the Chairman, I am looking forward to working with
my colleagues on both the Commerce Committee and also the Finance
Committee to ensure that we continue to have a robust surface
transportation program.
I am glad that the administration released its first-ever surface
transportation reauthorization proposal last week, especially in light
of the anticipated shortfalls facing the Highway Trust Fund.
As many in this room know, the Highway Trust Fund is projected to
become insolvent later this summer. This shortfall, which is already
being felt, will lead to delays in highway and safety improvements and
reimbursements to states and the construction sector.
This is particularly problematic for cold-weather states such as
South Dakota that have a shorter construction season and a limited
window to make decisions regarding which projects to select, bid, and
ultimately begin construction.
As Congress works to reauthorize our Nation's highway programs, the
most important question we must answer is how we will pay for the
program going forward.
Since serving on the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee during TEA-21, to our efforts with SAFETEA-LU, and most
recently MAP-21, I am skeptical about the financing proposals the
administration has put forward to fund its $302 billion plan,
especially the administration's reliance upon one-time revenues from
so-called corporate tax reform. This aspect of the plan is unlikely to
secure broad support in Congress and fails to provide a longer term
funding solution for these vital programs.
I am also concerned by the administration's proposal to fund
additional programs-including new programs on passenger rail and
vehicle safety and an expansion of TIGER--through the successor to the
Highway Trust Fund. In a time of limited revenue, it would be unwise to
make new promises regarding programs that have the potential to divert
funding from the core mission of the Highway Trust Fund.
Nevertheless, there are some provisions I am encouraged by,
including the fact that the administration has finally recognized my
call for extending the deadline for Positive Train Control (PTC)
implementation. As we have discussed previously in this Ccommittee,
delays at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and other
unforeseen events since enactment of the PTC mandate in 2008, have
prevented nearly all passenger and freight railroads from moving
forward on implementation of this technology.
Along with Senators Blunt, McCaskill, and Pryor I have introduced
legislation, which is supported by other members of this committee, to
extend the 2015 deadline in order to provide all railroads with a
realistic time-frame for full implementation.
There are now fourteen bipartisan co-sponsors of this legislation,
and I hope that our Committee will address the PTC issue yet this
Congress.
Unfortunately, however, the administration's proposal does not
include a straightforward extension of the 2015 deadline, something
which I think is necessary, especially given the delays at the FCC. I
hope to see such an extension included in any final bill reported out
of our committee, and I look forward to working with my colleagues and
with the administration on this important issue.
Thank you again Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing, and I look
forward to Secretary Foxx's testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Boxer. And your work is
distinguished and aggressive and smart. You know the margins
and how to work them.
Mr. Secretary, no more speeches between us and you. Have at
it.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY R. FOXX, SECRETARY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Secretary Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune, and all members
of the Committee, I want to thank you all for having me and to
say a special word of thank you to Senator Boxer, to the Chair
of the EPW Committee, for the work that you're doing with folks
on a bipartisan basis to help solve this problem.
At the U.S. Department of Transportation safety is, by far,
our most important mission. We take this mission seriously and
we appreciate the attention this committee has and will
continue to devote to this important subject. It's an important
one for all parts of our country and especially now.
A week ago, in fact, one week ago this very hour, a train
carrying crude oil from Chicago to Virginia derailed not far
from downtown Lynchburg. The crash sent oil spilling into the
James River and flames, stories high, ignited on the banks of
that river causing the evacuation of a 20-block area. We're
fortunate no one was killed let alone hurt. Back in July, as
you remember, an oil train crashed outside of Quebec killing
47. Something like that, unfortunately, could easily happen
inside our borders too.
We are at the dawn of an incredibly promising time for
energy in America. Increased production is creating new jobs
and more opportunity. But moving this oil is also creating more
risk and greater danger. If America is going to be a world
leader in producing this energy than we're going to have to be
a world leader in safely transporting it as well. So today I've
taken further action to ensure that we are.
Today, I've released a safety alert advising shippers and
energy companies to no longer use the DOT-111 tank car and to
use a higher standard of car when transporting oil. This is
consistent with my statements 4 weeks ago before the
transportation appropriations subcommittee that, for purposes
of transporting Bakken crude, the DOT-111 should be retrofitted
or replaced. I've also signed an emergency order. It requires,
by law, shippers and energy companies to identify the routes
Bakken oil crude is traveling and to notify State Emergency
Responders so they can work with communities that are along
those routes. That way local police and fire departments can
prepare. These are just the latest steps we've taken.
Last week, we submitted a comprehensive rule to OMB that
will address a variety of issues; new tank car standards,
speed, proper classification, among others. The relevance to
this hearing today is simply this: Even these safety measures
will be insufficient if we do not prepare our rails, roads and
communities by adding another important element, a first-rate
infrastructure system.
Over the next generation, we're going to not just be moving
more energy. We're going to be moving more of everything; more
people and more goods. By 2050, we'll have to move almost twice
the amount of freight that we currently do. And whether we can
do that safely is more of an open question now than it has ever
been. Mostly because we have struggled to maintain
transportation funding levels in recent years. In fact, today
I've sent a letter to all State Departments of Transportation.
It warns them that if action isn't taken, the Highway Trust
Fund could become insolvent as soon as August. And if that
happens, it will be near impossible for communities to keep
their infrastructure safe and up to code.
This is why we sent the GROW AMERICA Act to the Hill last
week. Because, if we didn't, if we don't invest in our
transportation system right now, it's easy to see a future that
is full of even more crumbling roads, bridges, broken track and
chokepoints. You can actually see this right now.
Last month, I was in Nashville where there are four bridges
that have reached the end of their useful life. And one has
been shut down three times since last summer because concrete
crumbles and falls onto the roadway below where drivers drive.
GROW AMERICA could fix a bridge like this and keep
travelers safe. It would do so not only by making the Highway
Trust Fund solvent but by growing our transportation programs
to accommodate our growing needs. The other side of this
wouldn't just be a newer, safer, transportation system; it
would be a transportation system that supports many thousands,
if not millions, of new jobs. Both jobs in building our
infrastructure and jobs in industries that are supported by it;
industries like tourism and shipping. Especially shipping,
because this includes the resources we need to strengthen
America's freight network. It would also modernize how we fund
transportation. For example, GROW AMERICA streamlines the
approval and permitting process so projects could be built
faster and cheaper but with the same quality.
We believe there's room for agreement here, not just on the
bipartisan reforms but also on funding, too. And we're
particularly encouraged that members of both parties, like
Chairman Dave Camp and Senator Boxer, have expressed their
openness to pro-growth business tax reform as a pay-for.
So I'll end my remarks there except to say that for more
than half a century Congress has consistently recognized that
as America grows so must our investment in transportation. And,
in almost every case, each new surface reauthorization law has
increased investment by 40 percent compared to the last law.
And Congress has passed them with broad bipartisan majorities
in both Houses. I see no reason why Congress can't do so again.
America does not need another crisis. After all, we all take
the same oath, an oath to protect this country and its people.
And that's what investing in our transportation system does. It
creates a sturdier, stronger, safer America.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Foxx follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Anthony R. Foxx, Secretary,
U.S. Department of Transportation
Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
talk about the Administration's proposal to reauthorize the surface
transportation programs, called the GROW AMERICA Act.
Transportation is a critical engine of the Nation's economy.
Investments in the national transportation network over the country's
history, and especially the last half of the 20th Century, have been
instrumental in developing the world's largest economy and most mobile
society. However, before the end of this summer the Highway Trust
Fund--which funds a significant portion of the construction and repair
of our surface transportation system--is projected to become insolvent
and just a few weeks later the authorities that underpin our surface
transportation programs will expire. Without action, many States,
tribal and local communities may be forced to slow or stop work on
critical transportation projects that our Nation depends upon to move
people, energy, and freight every day, putting jobs at risk and slowing
investment in our future. This slow-down may happen well in advance of
actual insolvency. Indeed, we have reports that many states are already
re-thinking their investment plans due to the uncertainty coming from
Congress.
Additionally, it is critical that we boost infrastructure
investment as we are not keeping pace with our growing economy, our
growing population, and the traveling needs of the public. For example:
65 percent of America's major roads are not in good
condition. One in four bridges need significant repair or
cannot handle today's traffic. 45 percent of Americans do not
have access to transit.
By 2020, the Highway Trust Fund's purchasing power will have
dropped by nearly half since 1990, even though the country's
population is projected to increase 30 percent.
Bringing existing transit assets up to a state of good
repair will require an annualized investment level of $18.5
billion through the year 2030, compared to the $10.3 billion
currently being spent per year.
The Generating Renewal, Opportunity, and Work with Accelerated
Mobility, Efficiency, and Rebuilding of Infrastructure and Communities
throughout America Act, or GROW AMERICA Act, is a $302 billion, four-
year transportation reauthorization proposal that provides increased
and stable funding for our Nation's highways, bridges, transit, and
rail systems. The Administration's proposal is funded by supplementing
current revenues with $150 billion in one-time transition revenue from
pro-growth business tax reform. This will prevent a Trust Fund
shortfall for four years and increase investments to meet national
economic goals.
The GROW AMERICA Act will provide States, tribal and local
governments with the certainty needed to effectively plan and start
construction on projects that will support millions of jobs over the
next several years. It will also enable more transformative
transportation projects that will improve the Nation's global
competitiveness and mobility in communities across the country.
Specifically, the GROW AMERICA Act will provide--
$199 billion to invest in our Nation's highway system. The
proposal will increase the amount of highway funds by an
average of about 22 percent above FY 2014 enacted levels,
emphasizing ``Fix-it-First'' policies and reforms that
prioritize investments for much needed repairs and improvements
to the safety of our roads and transit services, with
particular attention to investments in rural and tribal areas.
$7 billion focused on car and truck safety measures. The
proposal will also provide $7 billion for the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration and Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration to improve safety for all users of our highways
and roads.
$72 billion to invest in transit systems and expand
transportation options. The proposal increases average transit
spending by nearly 70 percent above FY 2014 enacted levels,
which will enable the expansion of new projects that improve
connectivity, such as light rail, street cars, and bus rapid
transit, in suburbs, fast-growing cities, small towns, and
rural communities, while still maintaining existing transit
systems. The GROW AMERICA Act proposes a powerful, $5.1 billion
increase from FY14 enacted in investments to address public
transit's maintenance backlog to reduce bus and rail system
breakdowns; create more reliable service; and reduce delays
that make it harder for all commuters to get to work. The
proposal also includes the innovative Rapid Growth Area Transit
Program, which will provide $2 billion over four years to fast
growing communities for bus rapid transit and other multimodal
solutions to get ahead of the challenges caused by rapid
growth.
Improve project delivery and the Federal permitting process.
The GROW AMERICA Act will build on recent efforts to expedite
project approval timelines while delivering better outcomes for
communities and the environment. The proposal expands on a
series of successful efforts by the Administration to expedite
high priority projects and identify best practices to guide
future efforts without undermining bedrock environmental laws
or public engagement. Not only will important projects break
ground faster, but the increased level of transparency and
accountability will lead to delivering better environmental
outcomes, as the proposal will improve interagency coordination
by advancing concurrent, rather than sequential, project
reviews and will improve transparency of project reviews and
timelines through online ``dashboards.'' It will also increase
flexibility for recipients to use Federal transportation funds
to support environmental reviews, and help to integrate
overlapping requirements.
Tools and resources to encourage regional coordination and
local decision making. The proposal includes policy reforms to
incentivize improved regional coordination by Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs), which are local communities'
main voice in transportation planning. The GROW AMERICA Act
also strengthens local decision making in allocating Federal
funding so that local communities can better realize their
vision for improved mobility. High-performing large MPOs will
be granted control of a larger portion of funds under two
Federal transportation programs--the Surface Transportation
Program (STP) and the Transportation Alternatives Program
(TAP)--and these MPOs will also receive funds through a set
aside under the new Fixing and Accelerating Surface
Transportation (FAST) program.
The GROW AMERICA Act will take critical steps to safeguard the
traveling public. The Act addresses safety vulnerabilities on our
transportation network--vulnerabilities that pose a potential threat to
the health and welfare of all American workers and families.
Specifically, the Act will--
Expand authority to protect the public from automobile
defects. The Act will strengthen safety regulators' ability to
hold automobile manufacturers accountable for defects that can
cost lives.
Take steps to improve truck and bus safety by streamlining
the Federal truck-and bus-safety grant programs to provide more
flexibility for states to take fast action to address regional
and evolving truck-and bus-safety issues.
The U.S. transportation system moves more than 52 million tons of
freight worth nearly $46 billion each day, or almost 40 tons of freight
per person per year, and freight tonnage is expected to increase 62
percent by 2040. The GROW AMERICA Act will make critical investments to
help improve the safe and efficient movement of freight across all
modes of transportation--highway, rail, port, and pipeline. Without new
investment, supply chains degrade, hindering job growth and harming
retailers, manufacturers, and the millions of American consumers who
need their goods to be transported efficiently and affordably.
Specifically, the GROW AMERICA Act will--
Provide $10 billion for a multi-modal freight program that
strengthens America's exports and trade. The GROW AMERICA Act
will help make critical investments to improve the efficiency
of the movement of goods throughout our transportation system
and help accommodate future growth, in part through providing
$10 billion over four years to establish a new multimodal
freight grant program to fund innovative rail, highway, and
port projects.
Align planning among the Federal Government, states, ports,
and local communities to improve decision-making. The GROW
AMERICA Act incentivizes states to collaborate and establish
long term freight strategic plans that will help inform a
National Freight Strategic Plan assembled by the U.S.
Department of Transportation that will serve as the basis for
how the Department can best support freight movement.
Additionally, the GROW AMERICA Act will give shippers and
transportation providers a real seat at the table for making
investment decisions.
The GROW AMERICA Act will expand economic growth, and create jobs
and new opportunities for Americans. The President is dedicated to
enhancing opportunity for all Americans and U.S. businesses by
investing in transportation projects that better connect communities to
centers of employment, education, and other critical services.
Specifically, the GROW AMERICA Act will--
Support ladders of opportunity to the middle class. Today,
45 percent of Americans lack access to public transportation,
limiting the options of many Americans to jobs, education and
other necessities. The GROW AMERICA Act will provide improved
access to safer and less expensive transportation options for
millions of Americans in part by investing $72 billion in
public transportation and expanding transportation options for
millions of Americans. This proposal includes $2 billion for an
innovative Rapid Growth Area Transit Program to provide new bus
rapid transit and other multimodal solutions for rapidly
growing regions. The GROW AMERICA Act includes $245 million for
workforce development to enhance the size, diversity, and
skills of our Nation's construction and transportation
workforce through collaborative partnerships with the U.S.
Department of Labor, States, and non-governmental
organizations.
Provide a significant investment to enhance safety and
modernize our rail infrastructure to meet growing market
demand. The Act will invest $19 billion over four years,
including nearly $5 billion annually for high performance and
passenger rail programs with a focus on improving the
connections between key regional city pairs and high traffic
corridors throughout the country. The Act will also improve
rail safety and provide certainty to states and local
communities by dedicating sustained funding to make the
transportation investments necessary to improve our
infrastructure and support our economic growth. The Act also
builds on current investments to vastly improve the system in
areas ranging from Positive Train Control (PTC) implementation
to enhancing flexibility in financing programs that will better
enable the rehabilitation of aging infrastructure.
The GROW AMERICA Act will provide more bang-for-the-buck through
innovative project finance and delivery improvements. In a time of
tight fiscal and budgetary constraints, the President's proposal
includes a number of measures to ensure that the American public is
getting the most out of Federal transportation infrastructure
investments that lead to better outcomes for all Americans.
Specifically, the GROW AMERICA Act will--
Utilize competitive funding to spur innovation. The proposal
will provide $5 billion over four years--an increase of more
than 100 percent--for the highly successfully TIGER competitive
grant program and $4 billion embedded in the highway and
transit requests for a competitive grant program called Fixing
and Accelerating Surface Transportation (FAST). Modeled after
the Department of Education's Race to the Top program, FAST
will reward States, Tribes, and MPOs that adopt bold,
innovative strategies and best practices in transportation that
will have long-term impact on all projects across the
transportation programs.
Incentivize cost-effective investments. The proposal will
strengthen the performance incentives to maintain safety and
conditions of good repair, and expand research and technology
activities in order to improve the productivity of our
transportation systems, thereby increasing taxpayer return on
investment.
Provide $4 billion to attract private investment in
transportation infrastructure. The Transportation Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program leverages Federal dollars by
facilitating private participation in transportation projects and
encouraging innovative financing mechanisms that help advance projects
more quickly. The GROW AMERICA Act calls for $4 billion in funding over
four years, which could support up to $40 billion in loans for
transportation projects. The GROW AMERICA Act will strengthen the
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program by
allowing the Department to reduce the cost of obtaining a loan in some
cases, making RRIF more accessible to short line and regional
railroads. The proposal will raise the cap of Private Activity Bonds
(PABs) to $19 billion, making room for more projects considering a
public-private partnership approach to be able to take advantage of
this cost-saving tool.
The Administration proposes to fund the GROW AMERICA Act through a
pro-growth, business tax reform, without adding to the deficit. The
President's Budget outlined a proposal to dedicate $150 billion in one-
time transition revenue from pro-growth business tax reform to address
the funding crisis facing surface transportation programs and increase
infrastructure investment. This amount is sufficient to not only fill
the current funding gap in the Highway Trust Fund, but increase surface
transportation investment over current authorized levels by nearly $90
billion over the next four years. When taking into account existing
funding for surface transportation, this plan will result in a total of
$302 billion being invested over four years putting people back to work
modernizing our transportation infrastructure. We believe that a
comprehensive approach to reforming our business taxes can help create
jobs and spur investment, while ensuring a fairer and more equitable
tax system that eliminates current loopholes that reward companies for
moving profits overseas and allow them to avoid paying their fair
share. While we are putting forward this pro-growth financing plan to
encourage bipartisan efforts to support a visionary infrastructure
plan, we are open to all ideas for how to achieve this important
objective, and will look forward to working closely with this Committee
and all Members of Congress of both parties on a solution that will
invest in more job creating transportation projects.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
I'm going to ask the first question and, everybody, we'll
stay it at 5 minutes. And everybody is going to get a chance to
ask what they want.
We have closed down the government. We talked about fiscal
cliffs. August 29, funding from the Highway Trust Fund stops.
What will be the effect in our states in terms of projects?
Number one. And, number two, in the instinct to plan for other
continued needed projects?
Secretary Foxx. Mr. Chairman, the short answer is that we
will start to feel the effects of the Highway Trust Funds
insolvency before August. June and July is primetime for State
DOTs to start letting contracts. And facing the kind of
uncertainty that is ahead of us, many of those contracts will
not be signed which will mean work will not go forward. In some
cases, projects will be slowed down and estimates are that we
stand to lose about 700,000 jobs immediately as a result of
this trust fund moving into insolvency.
On the question of planning, I would say that is also
something that has been a challenge for many State DOTs and
local project sponsors. Congress, over the last five years, has
passed 18 continuing resolutions and nine extensions. And the
cumulative effect of these short-term measures has been that,
at the state and local levels, the project pipeline is slowing.
Folks aren't spending the tens of millions of dollars it takes
to even plan a project because they don't know whether the
project can actually get done.
And so, this will be more of the same if we continue to
drift toward insolvency this summer, sir.
The Chairman. To follow up on that, we have been building
something called Appalachian Corridors in Appalachia since
1965. And, we've got one Corridor, called Corridor H, which is
not in the newspapers a great deal because not a lot is
happening to it. But, if it connects up with I-66, as it can in
about 50 miles, if 50 miles are completed, it will take two-
thirds of the land mass of West Virginia, which is not very
large, and change all of their economic prospects for the
better.
So, if we're going to run out of money, the psychology of
planning ahead disappears. Just like, if people don't think
that there is a place for them in some kind of industry, they
don't gear up for it. The psychology of planning and working is
mixed in with the psychology of spending or not spending;
right?
Secretary Foxx. That's correct, sir.
The Chairman. Those are my two questions for the moment.
Distinguished Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, the Administration's proposal would increase
funding for transit by 70 percent, for rail programs by 243
percent, but it would only increase highway funding by 21
percent compared to current levels. I'm wondering what the
reason is for that discrepancy? We've always thought about the
highway bill, the Highway Trust Fund, being principally about
highways.
Secretary Foxx. Sure.
Senator, if you take a look at our proposal, it's a $302
billion proposal over 4 years; $199 billion of it goes directly
into highways. And we suspect that with the advent of
additional discretionary competitive programs that a
substantial amount of the additional spending will also go into
highways.
But there are reasons why we've taken the approach that
we've taken. And, primarily, it is that our country is growing.
By 2050, we're expecting 100 million additional people and 14
billion additional tons of freight that we'll have to move
around this country. And, because of that, we've got to have a
multi-modal approach and our proposal is a recognition of that.
So what I would say is that, in absolute dollars, the
lion's share of this money is still going to go into our
highway system, which we obviously have critical repair needs,
critical new capacity needs, but it also recognizes that we
have growth happening in our metro areas. We also have rural
connections through transit and through rail that badly need to
happen whether it's passenger or freight.
Senator Thune. Since I've been associated with highway
bills in the time I've been in the House and Senate, we've done
three. This would be four. It has always been funded by the
user fee. I think it was pointed out earlier, Senator
Rockefeller and I, and some others on this Committee, also
serve on the Finance Committee. We had a meeting on the Finance
Committee last year in which a couple of the members on our
side--some are more conservative members--expressed support for
an increase in the user fee, in the fuel tax. The
Administration has, in testimony in front of this Committee and
others that I've been involved with in my time in the Senate,
by your predecessor that that's something the Administration
would not support.
And the reason I raise that question is because the
corporate tax reform that's used to fund this proposal is
really one-time revenues. It's repatriation of funds. It's not
the long-term solution that we're all talking about. It
actually creates a steeper cliff at the conclusion that would
have to be a filled up with a more permanent source of
financing. So, the question I have for you: is the
Administration open to or going to close the door on a user
fee, a fuel tax, as a way of more permanently funding the
highway program as opposed to something like this which is
short-term or limited?
Secretary Foxx. Well, I appreciate the question.
And our proposal is our proposal. We believe that it
strikes the right balance and actually adheres to many of the
principles that we've heard articulated from members of
Congress on both sides of the aisle. That is a desire not to
raise rates and a desire to avoid adversely impacting deficits.
This proposal, as we've articulated it, would accomplish that.
And that is why we've put it together the way we have.
At the same time, we've also said that if there are other
ideas that emerge from the Hill, we would listen to those
ideas. And that's still true. I would point out, however, that
the fuel tax has been on the table for quite a while. And even
more so, if you look at the overall curve in the fuel tax, the
curve is downward facing. And that's because of more efficient
vehicles and the fact that the tax itself hasn't been indexed.
So it's a tool that has been available to Congress over the
last several years. We will continue to keep our ear to the
ground and to listen for other ideas that may emerge.
Senator Thune. But it is a tool. It has been available to
Congress, but it's very difficult to feature a bill passed by
Congress if the Administration has taken a hard stand saying
I'm not going to sign a bill or entertain a financing mechanism
that includes a user fee in increasing the gas tax. I mean,
that's basically, in front of this committee, what position the
Administration has taken.
I'm just curious because at some point we've got to find a
long-term solution. And there are some of us who come from
rural states where toll roads and vehicle miles traveled
solutions just don't work. But I guess the purpose for the
question is to find out if the Administration--if that's a
position they will still adhere strongly to, or if they are
open to consider that as a potential way of financing the
highway program into the future as it has been financed in the
past.
Secretary Foxx. Again, we believe our proposal meets a lot
of the principles that many have articulated. We think it is
the right way to go particularly given the urgency of the
moment and the fact that we have, even the last heroic effort
to get a reauthorization bill done, was a 2-year bill. That
said, as I said before, our ears and our minds are open to what
emerges from the Hill. We make no representations about how the
Administration will ultimately approach what comes out but we
certainly want to be in the discussion and at the table with
you.
Senator Thune. You would not rule it out?
Secretary Foxx. We are listening to what Congress says
collectively.
Senator Thune. That's what your predecessor said except
that he ruled it out.
Secretary Foxx. At least we're consistent.
Senator Thune. Except that he ruled it out.
I have one more quick question, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. And I'm with you----
Senator Thune. OK.
The Chairman.--on the way you tried to pin him down there
and he wouldn't answer.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. That's called the influence of OMB.
Senator Thune. I will.
The Chairman. You're better than that, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Thune. I can come back to this later.
The Chairman. No, go ahead.
Senator Thune. Well, this has to do with what happens if we
don't fix this thing. And I hope that we do. We need a fix on
this and I hope we can come up with a solution.
But what, if any, consideration has been given to ensuring
that, if we have to fund projects and you're looking at how to
distribute funds, that a large project in one state doesn't
affect reimbursement for others in other states? Is the fact
that some states have shorter building seasons a factor that's
being considered in terms of how you look at that?
Secretary Foxx. In the event that we do reach insolvency,
sir?
Senator Thune. Right.
Secretary Foxx. Yes.
We, in the past, when this issue has been in front of the
department, have basically worked with each state to identify
what the great challenges are within that state. Invariably,
there will be some states that have greater capacity to manage
a short fall than other states and that will certainly be taken
into account based on past history. And, our desire and our
work will be to hold as few states harmless as we can based on
the resources we have, but it will be a tough issue when
there's less money and almost no money to meet our obligations.
Senator Thune. OK.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cantwell.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today, and
thank you for the Administration's leadership on the proposal
that you brought in to fill the Highway Trust Fund including
$10 billion in dedicated Multimodal Freight program. We very
much appreciate the fact that not only are you dedicating
investments toward moving freight in America that you also are
looking at ways to make sure that we prioritize this from a
funding perspective. And so, we very, very much appreciate
that.
And I appreciate it, in your opening statement, about the
railcar safety issue. All across my state people are having
this debate in our local communities. Practically every
newspaper in my state has editorialized on the subject. I think
the Spokesman Review probably said it best. One that said,
``So, Spokane and communities across the Northwest are at the
mercy of a lumbering Federal bureaucracy. We can draw up
disaster plans. We can conduct drills. But, after that, we just
have to cross our fingers and watch the trains go by.''
And the reason why I brought the map up is because this is
the train route. And as you can see, the train route goes
through every major city in the Northwest. It would not be a
totally different story, obviously, if it went through a more
rural community but it's hitting every urban center of our
state.
So this is a big issue for us and people obviously want to
know. Today, you're announcement will be helpful and giving
transparency on emergency responders being able to access that
information about what's being carried and when. So that's a
positive step in the development.
But I guess my question is, if people don't comply with the
previous voluntary standards that you set out or this response,
is there any penalties for not responding to that if you're a
shipper?
Secretary Foxx. Well, let's take both.
The safety advisory is not law. And that is what we are
issuing today; to urge not using DOT-111s for the transport of
Bakken crude oil.
Senator Cantwell. And when should they be phased out?
Secretary Foxx. Well, we are under the rulemaking process,
currently. We submitted to OMB last week a comprehensive
approach to this. The rule is still under review but, what I
would say is that we are moving as expeditiously as we can to
provide certainty to the communities you just talked about as
well as to industry. And as soon as that rule is out our
position on the timeline will be known.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I would just say this: I think my
communities are thinking you're thinking more about industry
than thinking about communities. And that is, if you look at
what previously happened with the incidents and, now, what just
happened in Lynchburg--and I get that this is a challenging
question at where to draw the line. But, if we know that we
want to get rid of these carriers that we don't think are a
safe transport vehicle for the Bakken oil and we think it's
unsafe, than we should come up with a date in certainty.
Making it voluntary, in my opinion, isn't going far enough.
And to think now, from the Lynchburg situation, that one of the
cars that may have derailed or exploded might even be a newer
car, which may pose a question to us; is the newest car going
to be safe enough?
Again, for these communities in my state, huge populations,
a lot of transportation going through there. Just knowing that
they're coming through there isn't going to be enough. And so,
I would urge, DOT to--when you look at the, what is it, 8,000
percent increase and the amount of product now being carried.
So what's happened is an explosion of product being carried
through this area and not the right response in safety
regulations.
And so, we're urging a mandatory date for getting rid of
these DOT-111 cars and a mandatory rule on safety. Because we
just think it's too much for people to ignore the voluntary
agreement without policing with so many people at risk as we
saw in Canada and as we saw in Lynchburg and as we're seeing in
other areas.
So I thank you, though. I thank you for your
responsiveness.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
And, Senator, rest assured that we agree with you. The
voluntary measures that we've undertaken, by virtue of the call
to action that we did with industry a few months ago, were
intended to be interim steps until a rule was actually
promulgated and finalized.
And, again, we're working as hard and fast as we can to get
that done. We know the certainty matters. And it is because
communities across America have had concerns about this that we
issued the emergency order which is binding on the industry to
notify communities as to what is moving through their
communities when it comes to this order.
Senator Cantwell. Will your rulemaking be done by the end
of the year?
Secretary Foxx. It is my intention that it will. And I hope
to have it done sooner than that if we can.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Secretary Foxx. Yes.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Klobuchar.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
But I did want to bring up the fact that we lost Jim
Oberstar this week. Congressman Oberstar died in his sleep and
suddenly. And, as you know, he loved transportation. And he
talked about it.
The Chairman. He loved transportation so much, and I
apologize to my colleague----
Senator Klobuchar. Yes.
The Chairman.--he came, several times, to West Virginia
Appalachian Regional Commission meetings to help.
Senator Klobuchar. Yes.
The Chairman. And he had nothing to gain from it.
Senator Klobuchar. And for those members that never worked
with Jim, he's Minnesota, Northern Minnesota, Congressman; 47
years of experience in transportation, 11 as a staffer and 36
as a Member of Congress. So, anyone that drives over roads and
bridges this week should think of Jim. And, mostly, anyone that
goes on the bike trails.
He was ahead of his time, Secretary Foxx, and really
visionary about bike trails and how much Americans would use
bike trails. So we miss him very much in our state. And his
funeral is tomorrow.
I wanted to talk with you, just following up on Senator
Cantwell's questions, on rail. I know she talked about some of
the safety issues and other things but one of the things that
we're really concerned about right now is the service delays
and interruptions. We have so much use of rail in the upper-
Midwest with oil and with other energy sources that some of our
agriculture producers are really having issues with accessing
rail. And I wanted to make sure you were aware of that as well
as some of the pricing issues.
Secretary Foxx. Yes, I am.
And I know that the Surface Transportation Board has
developed some preliminary covenants with industry to try to
release some of those bottlenecks. But this is also
underscoring part of what I said at the outset, which is that
we have growing freight activity in this country. And without
substantial, new, more robust investments in infrastructure,
we're going to find ourselves more bottlenecks, more congestion
and more delays. And that is one of the reasons why a
substantial investment today is so important.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good.
And I would echo what some of my colleagues talked about
with the Highway Trust Fund and how important that is. I know
that Senator Boxer has been working on that.
I brought up trails and I worked hard with several of my
colleagues to ensure that the Recreational Trails Program was
preserved in MAP-21. As you know, Recreational Trails is a
foundation for our state trails across the country. And I
recently sent a letter with Senators Risch, Burr and Shaheen
and 20 other senators, urging the program's continuation in the
next transportation reauthorization bill. And I wanted to get
your thoughts on our TP program and its importance to trail
users.
Secretary Foxx. Well, I was in Indianapolis just a couple
of weeks ago. And this is a city that has managed to develop
substantial trails that are starting to bring population into
the city. And that population is using the existing grid
networks within that city, leveraging existing investments in
infrastructure, so that they're avoiding some of the green-
filled development that can sometimes result in loss of
environmental integrity in an area and also add cost.
And so, we're seeing in this country a resurgence of these
types of investments that improve quality of life that attract
population, leverage existing infrastructure and help
communities grow. And it's a very important part of the life of
communities across America.
Senator Klobuchar. And we appreciate it, by the way, your
visit to Minnesota; not to go from Indianapolis to Minneapolis
but that was the second state you visited. And we do want to
invite you back in June for the opening of the Central Corridor
Light Rail; something Mr. Rogoff has worked very hard on, that
links Minneapolis and St. Paul. So check your calendar for
that.
And also, as you and I discussed, some of the really needy
transportation programs and projects across our state,
including Highway 10 and Anoka, but I just wanted to end, in my
last minute or so here, to ask you about NHTSA.
Senator McCaskill chaired a hearing that I'll never forget,
the hearing about the GM recall and what was happening there.
And we have a woman in Minnesota, Natasha Weigel from Albert
Lea, who was just going down the road and basically stalled
out. And her car went 70 miles per hour and veered off the
road, slammed into a grove of trees. She was killed, her friend
driving the car was killed, and one of the things that I
realized, as I went through the evidence and listened to the
hearing, was just that you had over 200 complaints to NHTSA
about this ignition problem. And when I heard about how it was
first viewed as a problem with the airbags, there was,
nevertheless, a lot of evidence there about the ignition
switches.
And I remain deeply concerned about NHTSA's ability to spot
these trends. How do we fix it? Do you think 11 staff members
are sufficient to review the more than 40,000 vehicle safety
complaints NHTSA receives every year?
Secretary Foxx. Thank you for the question.
And, obviously, the GM recall issues remain under
investigation by NHTSA. I have also asked our Inspector General
to do a self-diagnosis on this to assure ourselves that we're
either doing everything we can to catch these things early or
if there are additional steps that we need to take going
forward, that those steps will be taken so that this type of
activity doesn't happen again.
But, having said that, NHTSA is an agency that has had,
over the last 7 years, 1,200 or so recalls affecting 95 million
vehicles. And we, as an agency, have prided ourselves on the
effectiveness of our safety standards, which set the standard
for the world quite frankly. If there's a better way, going
forward, to prevent the types of injuries and deaths that have
occurred in this situation, we will find it. And that's our
mission as an agency. And we always endeavor to get better. And
if we can, we will.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Johnson.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON JOHNSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, how many people have been killed in these
rail accidents? In the most recent ones?
Secretary Foxx. Well, in the most recent ones, we have not
had deaths in the U.S. but in Canada there were 47.
Senator Johnson. Those are all oil, transporting oil;
correct?
Secretary Foxx. That's correct.
Senator Johnson. There's another way of transporting oil;
isn't there?
Secretary Foxx. There are many ways. Yes, sir.
Senator Johnson. I mean, what's the most efficient;
pipelines?
Secretary Foxx. There are lots of ways.
Senator Johnson. Has there been anybody killed in a
pipeline accident recently?
Secretary Foxx. There have been people killed in pipeline
accidents.
Senator Johnson. Recently? Forty-six?
Secretary Foxx. I have to ask our PHMSA Administrator.
Senator Johnson. Is the Administration at all,
considering--I realize Keystone XL Pipeline is a different
issue--but are we considering other pipelines to take some of
the burden off the rail system?
Secretary Foxx. We are modal-agnostic at DOT. If there is a
mode to move something, we try to make sure the safety standard
is met. So, however it moves, our job is to make sure it moves
safely.
Senator Johnson. But would part of your job, also, would be
to make sure it moves as safely as possible and cost
effectively for the economy?
Secretary Foxx. Well, our job is to ensure that however
stuff is moving it's moving safely, sir.
Senator Johnson. I believe I'm correct that most of the
capital expenditure for freight rail is actually paid by the
freight companies themselves, the rail companies themselves;
isn't it?
Secretary Foxx. If you take out the cost of the
infrastructure that they ride on.
Senator Johnson. So educate me on that. So what does the
Federal Government pay in terms of infrastructure on the
freight rail system?
Secretary Foxx. Well, it depends, for the short line rail
systems we have historically provided support to ensure that
the track is safe. The Class 1 railroads tend to self-fund
their track more so than the short line railroads do.
Senator Johnson. So, out of your proposed budget here, how
much would be spent on freight rail systems?
Secretary Foxx. Well, we would propose to put $19 billion
into rail.
Senator Johnson. That's primarily passenger rail; right?
Secretary Foxx. Primarily passenger rail but, because in
many cases passenger rail and freight rail are running on the
same track, there will be benefits to freight rail as well.
Senator Johnson. OK.
I was a little confused because you seem to be making the
case that a lot of the increase in spending here is about the
increased rail traffic for freight, but it's really the freight
companies that, the rail companies, that pay for that
themselves.
Secretary Foxx. Well, a lot of the----
Senator Johnson. I mean to a great extent. It's primarily
their capital expenditure.
Secretary Foxx. There is no substitute for predictable,
sustained, Federal investment in our infrastructure system.
And, when it comes to non-Class 1 rail, we have some
significant safety and efficiency needs in rail.
Senator Johnson. Current transportation spendings are,
what, about $45 billion?
Secretary Foxx. Roughly.
Senator Johnson. And the gas tax revenues are about $34
billion? So we've got about $11 billion per year deficit?
Secretary Foxx. I think it's closer to about 15.
Closer to $18 billion, sir. Sorry.
Senator Johnson. OK.
So what is the outlay, then, versus the revenue?
Secretary Foxx. I would say we are generating about $34
billion through the gas tax. And so, if you add, about $52
billion.
Senator Johnson. OK. The number I have, about $45 billion.
OK, so you're going to propose increasing that to about $75
billion per year. You know, so you're going to be spending more
than about a $40 billion deficit?
Secretary Foxx. Well, we're trying to both address the
shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund but also to increase
investment in our Nation's infrastructure.
Senator Johnson. I understand.
By the way, that's a top priority.
Are there any discussions within the executive branch
there, interagency, about prioritizing the spending as opposed
to looking at increasing taxes? Because I actually think
infrastructure spending is a high priority of government. Who
else is going to do it? States and the Federal Government?
Any discussion in terms of taking, you know, for example,
some of the GAO reports where you have duplicated programs and
maybe take some of that lower priority spending, some of the
duplicated spending, and allocate that toward transportation
spending in infrastructure?
Secretary Foxx. Well, it's an interesting question that you
raise because we have had experience in this Administration, in
the DOT, with improving the efficiency by which projects move
through our permitting process.
Senator Johnson. I do know there are about 55 duplicated
programs in DOT. Have you analyzed those? And have you canceled
any of those programs?
Secretary Foxx. Well, we are working as hard as we can to
ensure efficiency. And there are efficiency provisions in our
proposal that focus on streamlining and making sequential
permitting processes more concurrent.
Senator Johnson. But, I mean, specifically to Senator
Coburn's wastebook, are any of those duplicated programs within
the Department of Transportation, have any of those been
eliminated?
Secretary Foxx. I'd have to take a look, sir, and respond
back to you.
Senator Johnson. OK, I appreciate that answer. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Foxx. Thanks.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Johnson.
I warn members that we have a 3:45 vote or two. And so, we
want to get everybody included.
Senator Markey to be followed by Senator Fischer.
It was Senator Fischer followed by Senator Markey, but he
came in at the last moment; reclaimed his place.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm sorry, Senator Markey.
The Chairman. Oh.
Senator Fischer. Who are we going with here?
The Chairman. He actually came in.
Senator Fischer. Oh, OK.
The Chairman. OK.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I want to raise some concerns about what is
not in the Administration's transportation bill proposal. And
what is not in the Administration's transportation bill is a
single measure that would prevent a car company from keeping a
dangerous safety defect for a decade in the future from being
public.
We have seen so many reports about how GM treated consumers
who complained that their cars shutdown on their own even after
GM knew it had a problem. At the time that Benjamin Hear was
killed in a Pontiac G5 in December 2009, GM had conducted five
internal studies into the ignition switch problem. But GM still
told his mother that the accident wasn't related to a safety
defect.
So it should be clear to everyone here that it is much more
difficult to cover up evidence and dismiss consumer complaints
if the evidence is publically available. That is why I
introduced the Early Warning Reporting System Improvement Act
along with Senator Blumenthal to greatly increase the
information made available to the public about potentially
defective vehicles.
Our bill calls for automobile companies to automatically
provide NHTSA with copies of the documents that first made them
aware of a fatality involving their cars and for NHTSA to make
those documents available to the public. One way to illustrate
just why our bill is needed is to look at what GM provided to
NHTSA, when NHTSA took the unusual step for NHTSA of asking for
more information about some of the GM Cobalt fatalities it
learned about.
I'd like to submit this document for the record. This is a
document tracking this relationship between GM and NHTSA on the
Cobalt issue.
[The information referred to is contained within Committee
files. Also available at www.markey.senate.gove/imo/medic/doc/
Request
toGMfromNHTSA2007NHTSA-MARKEY%202.pdf]
Senator Markey. By the time NHTSA did ask for more
information, what GM submitted to NHTSA in 2007 proves that GM
knew that the contractor NHTSA used to investigate the accident
that killed two Wisconsin teenagers was doing so because of
concern that the airbags had not deployed. Even more
shockingly, GM also sent NHTSA a February 2007 analysis and
reconstruction report done by the Wisconsin State Patrol
Academy that found that the ignition switch had turned the
engine off at the time of the crash preventing the airbags from
deploying. The report also references other reports of similar
problems that the Wisconsin investigators uncovered.
We already know what happened next. Nothing. NHTSA didn't
begin a defect investigation; GM didn't recall the vehicles;
and these documents remained secret for years. They're being
released publically. Publically, for the first time today; this
report that I have in my hand. If they had been automatically
provided to NHTSA, and if NHTSA had made them public,
consumers, our auto safety experts, could have identified these
defects much sooner and prevented additional deaths and
injuries.
Secretary Foxx, will you support the language that Senator
Blumenthal and I are asking to require the documents that first
alerts automakers to a fatality involving their vehicles be
provided to NHTSA and made publically available?
Secretary Foxx. Senator, I will certainly take a look at
the bill and I will also offer our team to provide technical
assistance to you and to Senator Blumenthal should you wish to
enter that conversation as this proposal moves forward in
Congress.
Senator Markey. Conceptually, do you have any problem with
the information being made public when an accident occurs that
leads to a fatality that the information be sent to NHTSA? Do
you have any problem with that?
Secretary Foxx. Well, I think in the past there've been
several challenges including not the least of which being
individual privacy. But, I think there's some promise to what
you're proposing and I would offer what I've just said,
technical assistance, and I'll take a look at the bill.
Senator Markey. If the privacy issues are overcome and it's
just generic information that's passed on, would that then
alleviate your concern and could you then support?
Secretary Foxx. I understand what you're driving at. I
think it's a laudable goal. I look forward to taking a look at
the bill.
Senator Markey. So you're not making a commitment?
Secretary Foxx. I'm not making a commitment right now, sir.
Senator Markey. OK.
Well, I think, obviously here, that we've had a huge
problem at NHTSA and we've had a huge problem within the auto
industry. If this information had been made public, we could've
avoided this entire mess that GM is going through right now.
And I think it's imperative for the Administration to provide
this information from the auto industry to NHTSA so that it is
there in the public domain so that we can avoid this
catastrophe which is effecting hundreds of, if not more,
families all across our country.
And I think that we cannot allow automakers to keep the
very same accident report details secret in the future. And I
just wish that we were hearing a more affirmative answer from
the Administration on this. I just think that we cannot go
through this whole situation and not have an answer for the
American people.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank you, Senator Markey. And you can
include me in that group.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Fischer.
I'm sorry. I apologize.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do thank
you for holding this----
The Chairman. Senator Markey has been here for 112 years.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. He has a lot of seniority.
Senator Fischer. But on this committee I think I have
seniority, too.
[Laughter.]
Senator Fischer. But I do thank you for holding this
hearing.
Senator Markey. I am called junior for the first time in 40
years. I love it. I love it.
Senator Fischer. Good deal. Thanks.
Good to see you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Foxx. Good to see you, Senator.
Senator Fischer. I know you're aware of the issues that we
were having in Nebraska with the Federal Highway Administration
and also with the whole NEPA process.
I don't know if you've heard the updates on where we are
there but, you know, the concern was just the process causing a
higher cost, more time, projects not getting done.
I would like to tell you, though, that the Acting
Administrator, after meeting with me and we went over a lot of
these different problems and issues, traveled to Nebraska; had
meetings; things are moving along; we're forming an action
plan; and some things are moving forward. So I wanted to keep
you up to date on that. And I hope we'll continue to see that
cooperation between the Federal and state government so that we
can monitor the situation and make sure we continue to move
forward and are able to accomplish the goals we all have,
making sure that these big infrastructure projects are going to
be completed and cost effective in, also, a timely manner.
So thank you.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Senator Fischer. As you know, agricultural truck drivers as
well as retailers and wholesalers, as they're delivering these
farm supplies, they're currently granted an exemption from the
hours-of-service rules if they're operating within that 150
mile radius. And that's been very helpful for folks that are
planting and harvesting. And if they didn't have that
exemption, they would have to have the cost of a larger fleet
of trucks, we'd have to see more drivers and I think we'd see
some missed production opportunities as well.
Do you believe that that's important to maintain that
exemption on the hours-of-service for agriculture? Are you
confident that we can maintain that?
Secretary Foxx. I believe that, in the situations where
we've made exceptions, they've been necessary exceptions. And
that's buttressed against our overall goal of assuring that we
are adhering to the highest level of safety. And as situations
emerge, we will continue to try to do the best we can to strike
the right balance and that's always what our goal is.
Senator Fischer. OK. I hope you will look at that in a
serious manner. I think it's important to keep that 150 mile
radius there for these individuals so they're able to continue
to provide those opportunities down the road.
So thank you very much.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Senator Fischer. With tolling----
Secretary Foxx. Yes.
Senator Fischer.--and the GROW AMERICA Act, it would lift
the ban on tolling on the interstates. If we look at the
details of tolling and what a proposal on that would look like,
would the states be responsible for the setting up of that
infrastructure? Are we going to see the tolls just be paid to
that segment of road where the tolling takes place?
I think we'll see additional stress on parallel highways
when you have tolling on an interstate system out there. But,
in my opinion, it doesn't always meet the goal of how we
finance our highways and roads and especially if the money is
only going to be used for that segment of highway that's there.
Also, I think the truckers, those small business people, the
independents that are out there, they really are hit hard on
toll payments because a lot of times they pay that out-of-
pocket. I would assume that your department is going to look at
all those impacts before a final ruling is put out on that or a
final proposal is put out?
Secretary Foxx. Yes. Let me talk about this for a second,
if I might, Senator.
Our proposal on the tolling issue is actually more limited
than has been widely reported. Essentially, tolling, under our
proposal, only becomes available if a Governor of a state
requests it. And, even then, it has to be approved by the
department.
And we believe that having the tool available is useful.
But, as you point out, it is not a wholesale solution to the
transportation challenges we face. Moreover, we are not
endeavoring to draw out the revenue from tolls into the Federal
system to pay for our bill. And I just wanted to make sure I
was very clear about that.
But to your point, tolling can be a useful tool. But, as we
look at the overall infrastructure deficit and, in particular,
the challenges that are upon us over the next couple of months,
that is not the solution to the urgent problem that we're
talking about right now of the Highway Trust Fund.
Senator Fischer. And I agree.
I guess I wasn't implying that the tolls would go to the
Federal Government but my understanding is they are used for
that specific segment of highway where the tolling takes place.
Secretary Foxx. That is correct.
Our proposal would make it available, again, under the
conditions I just talked about where the desire would be to
better maintain the facility on which the toll is charged or to
address congestion in the particular area that we were
discussing.
Senator Fischer. Right.
And have you been in any kind of conversations with
truckers and the effect that any tolling would have on them?
You know, when people have a take-home pay of, maybe,
$40,000 or $50,000 a year when they are these small businesses,
that's going to be significant for them. Have you had any
conversation with them?
Secretary Foxx. We have engaged in discussions with a
variety of stakeholders. We will continue to do so as we move
toward a bill. And I just would say that this is evidence of
the overall challenge of investing in our nation's
infrastructure at the scale that we need to which is that, in
order to do it, we have to, in my opinion and in our opinion,
have a variety of tools available to get there. In some cases
there will be tools that will be relatively incremental, but in
other cases, as is in the case of the Highway Trust Fund, we
need a big answer there.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, sir.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, my boss, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McCaskill----
STATEMENT OF HON. CLAIRE McCASKILL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator McCaskill [presiding]. Thank you.
Senator Fischer.--are you the Acting Chair?
Senator McCaskill. I am Acting while Senator Rockefeller is
out. The votes haven't begun yet, but he has gone over there to
vote and he'll come back as soon as he has voted.
Senator Blumenthal.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you for being here today, Mr. Secretary. Thank you
for your able beginning and your work as Secretary. I'm proud
to have voted in favor of your confirmation and I know you're
taking the lead on many of these transportation issues.
I want to join in the remarks, fully, made by my colleague,
Senator Markey. He and I have introduced a bill and, because
I'm lacking in time, I'm not going to repeat a lot of what he
said, but I do hope very deeply that you will, as promptly as
possible, endorse our bill. And that you will also continue to
cooperate with the investigation underway by the consumer
protection subcommittee of this committee very ably and
energetically being conducted by my colleague, Senator
McCaskill.
I want to ask you, first of all, were you as alarmed as I
am, and even appalled, by the latest news of the recall
announced with regard to 56,000 Saturn Auras for gear shift
cable defects that apparently began as many as a five or 7
years ago?
Secretary Foxx. We're always alarmed to learn of defects,
particularly, ones that have been out there for a while.
Senator Blumenthal. And that one comprised a roll-away
hazard that literally caused crashes and injuries that were
documented, that came to the public's attention, only within
the last 24 hours. I find that not only alarming but appalling.
Secretary Foxx. And to speak to that, that's one of the
reasons why, in our proposal, we do have additional tools
around imminent hazard. We also would increase the penalties
for things like timeliness issues from $35 million to $300
million to ensure that the level set is there for deterring
untimely recalls.
Senator Blumenthal. And let me ask you about the GM recall.
And my view is that NHTSA really was almost complicit in its
laxity and lapse of oversight during the years, in fact an
entire decade, when these defects should have prompted the
government watchdog to be awake and active in preventing the
accidents and deaths and injuries that occurred.
GM issued a special order that's mentioned in a letter that
you wrote to me and Senator Markey on May 6. And I ask, Madam
Chairman, that it be made part of the record.
Senator McCaskill. Without objection.
[The information is retained in Committee files.]
Senator Blumenthal. In response to our letter to you, you
noted that GM, as a result of your special order, has issued a
new interim guidance to consumers. Is that correct?
Secretary Foxx. That's correct.
Senator Blumenthal. Only as a result of your special order
did GM issue its new notice. And, in that notice, it gave
consumers, what I regard frankly, as the height of confusion.
Because, in that April 30 notice, it said, ``If your car is
jostled or jolted, it's possible for the key to move from `run'
to `accessory' especially if you have a heavy keychain,''
indicating that jostling or jolting the vehicle could cause a
danger. And then, in the next paragraph, it said that, ``Tests
show the vehicles are safe to drive if you take everything off
your key ring and drive using only the ignition key.''
Thereby, completely negating the warning about jostling and
jolting the vehicle being a source of extraordinary risk; as I
have said repeatedly. Would you commit to me to ask GM to ask
for a clarification of that notice to consumers?
Secretary Foxx. I will certainly take that under advisement
and pass your comments along to GM. I would also point out that
we are in the midst of an investigation of this matter. And my
belief is that, as that process moves along, we have an
opportunity to beef up not only the interim guidance but also
the ultimate outcome for consumers.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, the ultimate outcome here is
going to be continued crashes and potential deaths or injuries
unless action is taken now. So I urge you to order GM to
clarify this order.
Now, you note in the letter, and the letter states, ``In
appropriate circumstances, NHTSA may require a manufacturer to
advise owners not to drive their vehicles until a safety
related defect is remedied.''
That's a quote from the letter. You have authority to order
GM to advise owners not to drive their vehicles. I can't
imagine a case more appropriate for that kind of order than
this one. Would you agree?
Secretary Foxx. We've taken extraordinary measures in this
instance, based on our data-driven processes, to look at the
interim guidance that GM has offered. And, based on the data
that we have reviewed and, frankly, taken some extraordinary
steps to have our engineers basically recreate some of the
testing that was done by GM in the course of developing their
interim guidance, NHTSA has assured me that what GM has
proposed as interim guidance, which is effectively folks not
using other keys on a keychain, but putting the single key in
the ignition and using the vehicle, that that remedy is a
remedy that can be relied upon until the recall is completed.
Senator Blumenthal. Will you commit to making that data and
information and testing public right now?
Secretary Foxx. I will work with NHTSA to make as much of
it available as we can. And if there's----
Senator Blumenthal. Why would you not make it?
Secretary Foxx. If there's a reason why it can't be, we
will certainly make that known to you.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, I'm going to ask that that
information, all the testing, both GM's and NHTSA, be made
available publicly right now so that we can all be aware of
what has been done to satisfy NHTSA's obligation, which frankly
was unfortunately neglected in the past, well before you took
office. I also am going to ask that GM's tests and information
be made public. Evidently, they've been submitted to you. Mary
Barra, the CEO to GM, committed to make them available to us
but still has not done so.
Secretary Foxx. Well, I will say again, something I've said
before, which is that NHTSA, over the last 7 years, has issued
more than 1,200 recalls affecting 95 million vehicles. The body
of evidence is that it's an incredibly effective organization.
As I've said before, if there are ways to improve the work
that NHTSA does, we will find a way to implement reforms and
improvements, including perhaps some of the recommendations
that you've mentioned today as well as Senator Markey. I
haven't had a chance to look at all of the text of your bill,
for instance, but I've committed to doing so and hopefully we
will have more dialogue.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, I very much appreciate your
answers to my question. I hope you'll be responsive to the
specific requests that I've made.
I thank the Chairwoman for her indulgence. I'm over my time
as it is but, also, for her great work on this issue. Thank
you.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Secretary, for being here.
It's good to see.
Secretary Foxx. It's good to see you.
Senator McCaskill. I want to drill down a little bit on the
NHTSA issue. And I want to talk about the budget.
As you know, within NHTSA, there is the safety defects
investigation component of NHTSA. Now, I don't think anybody
would argue that over the last decade this has become a more
complex, a more demanding area, than ever before because not
only do you have the traditional safety defects to be concerned
about, you now have a whole other layer of technical
advancements where, in many instances, you have computers
driving cars. Computers that are much more integrated into
every function of an automobile, to say nothing of the next
generation cars that are all electric and so forth.
What is really disconcerting to me is how stagnant the
budget has been for safety defects investigations. That it has
really been essentially flat-lined for a decade. Now I know
that this budget was prepared before the proverbial whatever
hit the proverbial whatever on GM but, having said that, the
notion that we are looking at $10 million in a relatively small
staff, and we're asking these people to do a really heavy lift.
You know, there's no question that we've got Monday morning
quarterbacking going on about why NHTSA didn't find this. And I
will give NHTSA credit, they have not been ``Oh, poor us.''
But, frankly, nobody has even asked for more. It's not as if
this has been a request that's been made and turned down.
So would you like an opportunity to revisit the budget line
for safety defects investigations and look and see whether or
not you actually have the resources you need to do this?
Secretary Foxx. We would be happy to take that request and
submit back to you a response, Senator. I think it's a great
question that you ask and it's something that we are certainly
aware of; the staff constraints that we have. And I would love
to have an opportunity to come back to you on that.
[Information requested follows:]
We appreciate the opportunity to revisit the budget request for the
safety defects investigation program. In the President's Fiscal Year
(FY) 2015 Budget, NHTSA requested $10.6 million for the safety defects
investigations program, which is consistent with the FY 2014 request.
However, this request is for program costs and does not include
salaries and benefits for Office of Defects Investigation (ODI)
employees. While NHTSA did not ask for additional program dollars in
the FY 2015 request, the Agency did request six additional positions
for ODI. And in the President's FY 2014 Budget, the Agency requested
four additional positions for ODI.
ODI's work is important to all highway users, as is evident from
the recent recalls of Toyota vehicles and General Motors vehicles. To
increase the effectiveness of ODI's work, we believe that the following
steps are necessary: enhance ODI's ability to use the latest technology
to help identify possible safety defects; increase the public's
awareness of reporting safety problems with their vehicles or vehicle
equipment to NHTSA; and provide ODI with the personnel resources to
address potential safety risks.
Looking ahead, areas of new opportunities for safety defect
investigations could include an advanced data mining and analytical
tool, incorporation of business intelligence to enhance the ability of
defect screeners and investigators to identify new defect trends. On
another front, in the future NHTSA may wish to undertake a consumer
awareness and outreach campaign as a large portion of the data received
about defects comes from consumers.
DOT looks forward to working with Congress to ensure that NHTSA is
adequately funded to fulfill its safety responsibilities and respond
effectively to emerging safety issues through these and other
activities.
Having a sufficient number of qualified staff is critical to an
effective safety defects investigation program. ODI currently has eight
defect screeners and four Early Warning data analysts to identify
potential safety defects, and 16 investigators to conduct formal
investigations. With over 250 million registered vehicles in the U.S.,
this creates a tremendous data collection and analysis burden that will
only continue to grow.
Senator McCaskill. If you combine all the engineering that
is in residence at all of our manufacturers, and then you look
at the safety defects investigation component of NHTSA, it
really is David and Goliath. I mean it really is a very small
effort that can be put forth under any circumstances.
So I think it's time that your agency really take a--and,
by the way, Vehicle Safety Compliance, they got a million
dollar increase this year. And I'm not really sure that their
function is as important as the investigation's function.
Because, it's the investigation function that keeps the car
manufacturers honest. It's one thing once a car manufacturer
has come clean and said, ``We've got a defect and you've got to
make a decision on a recall.''
I believe that's what the safety compliance people do. But
it's a whole other deal to say, ``You guys have to go find
it,'' when the car manufacturer is trying to hide it, which is
what we have in this instance.
Let me also go briefly to--before my time is up and I know
votes have been called and we'll have to figure out whether we
adjourn or whether we deploy waves of sitting chairmen while we
try to go vote.
The public-private partnership on funding infrastructure, I
don't know if you've looked at the legislation that Senator
Blunt and Senator Bennet and I and others, and maybe even some
of the others that are still here, have done is Partnership to
Build America Act, which I think is a really elegant idea. The
idea is we do $50 billion worth of bonds. It would go out in an
auction setting to companies that wanted to repatriate profits.
And they would bid how high a tax they're willing to pay to
repatriate the money. So maybe you'd put out a trench of $5
billion, maybe, hypothetically General Electric wants to bring
back $5 billion. They'd say, ``You know, we'll pay 10 percent
tax on that.''
Well, maybe Apple wants to bring back $5 billion. They say,
``We'll pay 12 percent.''
Whoever is willing to pay the highest tax for repatriation
would secure the bonds, would allow them to repatriate the
money and then those funds would strictly be used to leverage
private and state and local money for infrastructure
development. I think it's a nifty idea and I think it works on
so many levels for the influx of money we need right now,
immediately, because of the crisis you eloquently described in
your statement.
Have you had a chance to look at it? And is there any
chance we could get the Administration to give a seal of
approval on this?
Secretary Foxx. We will take it back to the Administration.
And, certainly, it's consistent with our view that we've got to
have more tools in the toolbox as a nation.
The infrastructure deficit we have as a country is massive.
It's estimated at $3.6 trillion. And any way that we can find
to add capacity to build our infrastructure is very consistent
with what we're trying to do with the GROW AMERICA Act.
Senator McCaskill. We'll look forward to hearing back from
you.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you for being here.
Secretary Foxx. Sure.
Senator McCaskill. Senator Booker.
STATEMENT OF HON. CORY BOOKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Booker. Thank you, Chairwoman, very much.
Trying to be respectful of the time, and my colleagues who
may not have spoken yet, I'll try to be as brief as possible.
But I would be remiss, this is my first time to address you as
Senator and have you in a hearing. And I just want to say for
the record, I've had the privilege of knowing you for many,
many years. We were both peer mayors. And, if your service in
your current capacity is anything similar to your service as
mayor where you focused on economic growth, economic expansion,
economic opportunity, and really fighting for those who are
dealt bad cards, I think you're going to be a tremendous
leader. And I look forward to working with you especially as we
look at some of the big issues from FAA reauthorization to the
current issues before us right now. So it's a privilege to sit
across from you in this capacity.
To go real quick, you know, obviously New Jersey is--and I
don't want to repeat a lot of the very important things that
were brought up. And so, skipping to some of the specific
concerns. New Jersey is obviously a highly dense transportation
super structure. A significant amount of the freight that comes
into the United States is coming through our state. We have key
transportation nodes. And I'd like to zero in on one of those
nodes that has me really, particularly, concerned right now. If
I can, Chairwoman, submit--or Chairperson----
[Laughter.]
Senator Heller. I'm with you.
Senator Booker [presiding]. I'm the Chair? Let the record
show, this is my first time chairing the Commerce Committee.
Senator Scott. Will the Chairman yield then.
[Laughter.]
Senator Booker. I'm happy to take the power. The power I
feel right now is tremendous.
But I would like to enter into the record, without
objection, from my dear friends, Senator Scott and Senator
Heller, I'd like to put into the record an article about the
Hudson Crossing.
Without objection?
Senator Heller. Yes.
Senator Booker. Without objection, thank you very much.
[The information referred to follows:]
By Dana Rubenstein, May 5, 2014
``Clock Ticking on Hudson Crossings, Albany Warns''
The end may be near for the New York region's cross-harbor rail
tunnels, with no good alternative in sight.
``I'm being told we got something less than 20 years before we have
to shut one or two down,'' said Amtrak C.E.O. Joseph Boardman at the
Regional Plan Association's conference last week at the Waldorf
Astoria. ``Something less than 20. I don't know if that something less
than 20 is seven, or some other number. But to build two new ones,
you're talking seven to nine years to deliver, if we all decided today
that we could do it.''
Tom Wright, the Regional Plan Association's executive director,
described Boardman's remarks as ``a big shock.''
``I've been hearing abstractly people at Amtrak and other people at
New Jersey Transit say for years the tunnels are over 100 years old and
we have to be worried about them,'' he said. ``To actually have Joe put
something concrete on the table, less than 20 years . . . Within my
office, there was a level of, `Wow, this is really serious.' ''
New Jersey governor Chris Christie spiked plans to build two new
rail tunnels under the Hudson, likely leaving the metropolitan region
for the next quarter century with all of two rail tunnels to carry New
Jersey commuters into Midtown Manhattan. Those two tunnels are more
than a century old and carry more more than 160,000 passengers a day.
Hurricane Sandy flooded them and caused a lot of damage. They are also
a dangerously narrow chokepoint on the one of the busiest rail
corridors in the world.
The state and federally financed project called Access to the
Region's Core would have doubled the number of cross-Hudson tubes and
relieved that bottleneck. Construction had already begun when Christie
pulled the plug, a putative cost-saving measure that was also meant to
demonstrate his state's political independence, and rededicated some of
its funding to repairing the Pulaski Skyway.
Senator Chuck Schumer last year called Christie's decision ``one of
the worst decisions that any governmental leader has made in the 20th
century, or the 21st century.''
Amtrak has since come up with a new, still-unfunded plan called the
Gateway Program. Like A.R.C., it would build two new tunnels under the
Hudson River. Amtrak's literature puts the target completion date at
2030, but Boardman, recounting a panel discussion he'd attended earlier
that day, said the panel's consensus was ``25 years if you're lucky.''
By his lights, that's not nearly soon enough, particularly with
what he describes as at least a half-billion dollars' worth of
Hurricane Sandy-related damage. That could pose some very big problems
for the New Jersey commuters and regional rail travelers who rely on
those tunnels to get from New Jersey to New York, and back again.
``Today those two tunnels carry 24 trains per hour, 24,'' he said.
``If you take it to one tunnel, typically you'd assume 12. Not so. Six
trains per hour. Six. Because you gotta get them in and get them out.
Six trains per hour. Amtrak does four. So if Amtrak's selfish and owns
the infrastructure and says we're gonna do our four, well it doesn't
matter whether New Jersey Transit gets two or not, because with two
they're dead anyway. You can't deliver what we were gonna deliver.''
``Sorry, we are going to have to decline comment across the
board,'' said William Smith, a New Jersey Transit spokesman, when asked
to respond.
When I asked Craig Shultz, an Amtrak spokesman, who told Boardman
that the tunnels had 20 years, tops, he said he wasn't sure.
``As you know the Hudson River Tunnels are more than 100 years old
and were filled with salt water during Super Storm Sandy, which can be
very corrosive,'' he said. ``Amtrak is working with an expert to assess
the condition of the tunnel structures since the storm, and that work
is ongoing.''
``I think the point Mr. Boardman was making in his comments at the
RPA Assembly is that damage from Sandy accelerated what was already an
urgent need for additional tunnel capacity between New York and New
Jersey,'' he continued. '' We expect that the tunnels are going to need
major rehabilitation, which can only happen with prolonged service
outages permitted by a new tunnel.''
Christie's office didn't respond to a request for comment on
Boardman's remarks.
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2014/05/8544757/clock-
ticking-hudson-crossings-amtrak-warns
Senator Booker. This is all going to go to my head; forgive
me.
But this is an article about the deterioration of the
Hudson Crossing which is the busiest river crossing in the
United States of America and a critical part of our national
economy. It is a report that basically says two of the Amtrak
tunnels between New York and New Jersey--the CEO of Amtrak is
quoted as saying that they have about 20 years left of use
before one or both of those tunnels need to be closed.
The tunnels carry over 160,000 passengers; as I said,
again, the busiest river crossing in the United States of
America. In the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, especially as we
see a frequency of these storms, these tunnels are facing some
severe challenges. And, as we saw during Sandy, they were
closed. During peak hours, a train enters those tunnels every
150 seconds. Arguably, they are already over-crowded. And many
people who use those tunnels daily are struck with frustrations
because of delays, because of mechanical problems, and the
like. As you know, projects of this magnitude could take years
to complete. And so, the clock is ticking if that 20 years is
coming down.
And so, given this urgency, what can we do to ensure that,
as we focus on critical immediate projects, what can we be
doing to be sure that multi-year projects get the funding that
they need, and get the funding that they need not to respond to
a crisis but really what is more economically justifiable, the
funding they need, to avert crisis before they happen?
Secretary Foxx. Thank you for the question, Senator. And it
is a pleasure to be on this end of the table from you, as well.
Specifically on the Hudson Crossing, as you know, several
years ago, the department committed $3 billion to build a new
modern rail tunnel but the effort was canceled. The GROW
AMERICA Act would provide Amtrak with predictable dedicated
funding to repair and replace its aging infrastructure just
like these tunnel areas you're talking about. And Amtrak has
already begun efforts to replace these tunnels and it's called
the Gateway Tunnel Project which could be leveraged with,
again, predictable dedicated funding which our bill would
provide.
On the larger issues, you're exactly right. We treat our
infrastructure as if there's not a cost associated with poorly
maintained infrastructure. But, in reality, there is. There's
the cost of inflation; eventually you have to replace it.
There's the cost of wear and tear on the vehicle side in every
state I've gone to and I've seen evidence of the additional
cost it costs consumers and vehicle users just to, buy tires
and other things because they're riding over potholes.
And so, there's a cost to not acting. And, frankly,
specifically when it comes to rail or highways when there's
uncertainty, lack of predictable funding, lack of dedicated
funding, it's impossible to plan----
Senator Booker. Sorry to interrupt you, Secretary. Your
point is 100 percent clear.
If you could just touch on, I won't go through the longer
part of the question but, as trucks seek to expand, we really
have an issue with the impact on roads. There's this study that
you all are engaged upon that it seems like you need more time
to make sure that we're doing the right thing for road safety
and a number of other very important measures. Can you just
comment on that really, really briefly?
Secretary Foxx. Yes.
We are continuing to work through our study. We have
another public meeting coming up this summer on that. I expect
that the report will be issued to Congress by the November 15
deadline.
Senator Booker. All right. Thank you very much.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Senator Booker. It's with great hesitancy that, while it's
the first time I have the Chair of the Commerce Committee, that
I look across the table at my friend and colleague, Senator
Heller. It's with great hesitancy that I not only recognize you
to speak next but I yield my power as Chairman.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Heller [presiding]. Are you going to leave?
Senator Booker. I'm going to leave to go vote, sir.
Senator Heller. Because Senator Scott and I would like to
bring up a couple bills.
[Laughter.]
Senator Booker. For the sake of my dear friend, Secretary
Foxx, I might want to stay.
Senator Heller. Well, thank you.
And, Mr. Secretary, thank you for taking the time.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Heller. I'll be brief.
I wanted to bring up some NHTSA and GM, but I think we've
played that hand quite a bit today. So I'll keep my comments
brief for Senator Scott so we can both get down, the three of
us, get down to the floor.
But, like you, I want you to know I feel it's imperative,
what you do is very important.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Senator Heller. Infrastructure for the country, for the
state of Nevada, it's critically important. And I want to talk
about one issue that I believe is imperative and critically
important for the state of Nevada.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, between 2010 and 2030,
they anticipate that the Mountain West, which Nevada is part
of, will grow by 28.5 percent. Twenty-eight and a half percent;
roughly 32 million people will be in that region. So the demand
for both freight and personal vehicles are expected to soar.
And I do not want a multi-year surface transportation bill to
be signed into law without planning for the future
transportation needs, of course, of Nevada.
So I wrote a letter to the Chairman of EPW and the Ranking
Member and the necessity and need for Congressional designation
of a road from Las Vegas through Northern Nevada. And our
Governor is participating in this also; trying to determine
where that route will be. But in the meantime, I'd love to have
that designation.
And the reason it's important, and I'll be quick, the
reason it'll be important, I'm going to get done with this,
Senator Scott, is that Nevada is a net importer of freight. We
probably bring in almost double of what we produce into the
state of Nevada. And, as you know, it's a service industry. And
so, that makes some sense. And, obviously, the ability to move
freight would determine the world-class experience that we
offer in the State of Nevada. And so, that's why designating a
road to the north as part of I-11 is so important.
So, I guess my question to you, and then I'll be done--what
we're trying to do is increase trade, create jobs, improve our
economy. My question for you is: Will you support our endeavors
as a delegation from Nevada to congressionally designate I-11
into northern Nevada?
Secretary Foxx. First of all, Senator, thank you very much
for the question. And the types of challenges you just
described in Nevada are challenges that we see all over the
country.
Senator Heller. I'm sure you do. I'm sure you do.
Secretary Foxx. And it is one of the reasons why having a
robust solution on reauthorization and funding is so critical
because even with a designation, without the resources, we're
going to be in trouble.
Senator Heller. You and I are on the same page.
Secretary Foxx. Yes, absolutely.
Now, having said that, I'd be happy to work with your
delegation on this and I will ask our FHWA colleagues to
interface with you directly on this.
Senator Heller. Would you please?
Secretary Foxx. And we'll try to help you out.
Senator Heller. Secretary, thank you very much.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you. Appreciate you.
Senator Heller. Senator Scott.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM SCOTT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator Scott [presiding]. Let me make my first order of
business, as a new Chairman of this committee----
[Laughter.]
Senator Scott.--a point to vote for Senator Heller to be
the permanent Chair of the Commerce Committee.
[Laughter.]
Senator Scott. Any opposition? I see none.
[Laughter.]
Senator Scott. Probably won't be funny when Chairman
Rockefeller hears my comments here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Scott. Just a quick question for you. I had a
couple but I think Senator Fischer talked about the potential
for Interstate tolls which I think is very important with you
being from North Carolina; two lanes going to three lanes on I-
95 and the impact that would have. I'd love to, perhaps, submit
that question for the record.
Secretary Foxx. Sure.
[The information requested follows:]
Answer. We are not suggesting that the Federal Government should
direct State and local governments to impose tolls on their Interstate
highways. Rather, we are proposing to offer tolling as a tool in the
toolbox that states could consider--where appropriate--during the
project planning and development process. And we are proposing to make
the new toll authorities subject to Departmental approval.
As an example, the GROW AMERICA Act would allow any state the
option of tolling a highway to pay for its reconstruction. Under GROW
AMERICA, the existing Interstate System Reconstruction and
Rehabilitation Pilot Program (ISRRPP), with its limited number of
slots, would be discontinued. In its place, any state that has
identified a potential project to toll an Interstate highway to fund
its reconstruction, and vetted it through the NEPA process, would be
able to apply to USDOT for tolling authority. Before accepting
proposals, we would first develop and publish criteria for tolling
approvals, soliciting input from all interested parties and publishing
final approval criteria in the Federal Register after thoroughly
considering their comments.
Senator Scott. And then, get your response on that?
Another question that I'd love to get your perspective on
has to do with the trust fund and the fact that we're spending,
really, gas tax dollars, on transit systems that are not making
any real contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. And while we
have a challenge with building infrastructure, we have a
challenge building the infrastructure that the 18.4 cents per
gallon is dedicated to build. So I'd love to have that also for
the record.
[The information requested follows:]
Answer. In 1982, Congress passed the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act which directs a portion of Federal gasoline and diesel
excise taxes to an account in the Highway Trust Fund specifically to
help fund mass transit operations. Through the Mass Transit Account,
buses, subways and other forms of mass transit have helped communities
nationwide to expand or improve public transportation systems--thereby
helping to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. Highways
and mass transit systems are complementary, not competitive, solutions
to America's transportation challenges and we need to increase
investment in both.
Senator Scott. My question really has to do with just the
regulatory environment that's been growing so quickly.
You think about the fact that in Fiscal Year 2013, almost
4,000 new rules were issued. Now we're seeing the cost of the
regulatory environment is about 11 percent of the entire GDP of
our country. If you're a small business owner like I used to be
with 20 employees or fewer, the cost of the regulatory
environment is about $10,500 a year; if you have more than 500
employees, it's about $7,800.
With GROW AMERICA, you have put forward lots of ideas for
more regulations; and just to name two or three real quick and
get your response on the cost benefit analysis on these
regulations and other regulations to come. If you think about
inspectors stopping passenger tour buses and doing inspections
any time they want to while they're in route, I think that
would have a major impact on the cost of doing business. If you
think about being able to impound a new vehicle at a dealership
for up to 72 hours, hopefully trying to figure out whether
they're in compliance with the CAFE Standards that has another
impact. And, if you think about an extension or expansion of
the Federal hours-of-service regulations to railroads, I
certainly know that would have an impact.
And my real question is simple. What is the cost benefit
analysis suggesting and/or indicating to you? And, have we
actually had a cost benefit analysis on these proposals, so to
speak?
Secretary Foxx. Yes.
Well, thank you for the question, Senator. And we will
submit responses to the questions for the record, as well.
[The information requested follows:]
Answer. Executive Order 13563, signed by President Obama in 2011,
requires that any regulatory requirement adopted by an agency can be
adopted ``only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify
its costs.'' While the statutory provisions proposed in GROW AMERICA
have not yet been the subject of such benefit-cost analysis, they would
all be subject to benefit-cost analysis before the regulations
implementing them were issued.
Section 5401 of GROW AMERICA would amend the requirements for
approval of State motor carrier safety plans. The proposed language
would require that, ``except in the case of an imminent hazard or
obvious safety hazard,'' such plans must ensure ``that an inspection of
a vehicle transporting passengers for a motor carrier of passengers is
conducted at a station, terminal, border crossing, maintenance
facility, destination, or other location where adequate food, shelter,
and sanitation facilities are available for passengers, and reasonable
accommodations are available for passengers with disabilities.'' The
proposed language only affects State inspectors, not Federal
inspectors, and is quite restrictive about where inspections may take
place, and does not allow inspectors to stop passenger tour buses any
time they want to. Inspections can only take place where the needs of
the passengers can be attended to. While we have not prepared a
benefit-cost analysis of this provision, we believe that this provision
will enhance safety without having a significant adverse effect on
passengers. We believe that most passengers would be happy to have the
assurance that the bus on which they are traveling is safe.
Under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
(NHTSA's) current regulations concerning Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) standards, the fuel economy standard varies depending on the
``footprint'' of the car--that is, the wheelbase of the car multiplied
by its track width. It therefore becomes important to ensure that the
footprint is accurately measured. Section 4108 of GROW AMERICA
clarifies that NHTSA inspectors can examine automobiles at the
manufacturer's or dealer's premises to confirm that the footprint
stated in the manufacturer's certification of compliance is accurately
measured. A mis-measurement of the car's footprint has the potential to
increase the regulatory burden on the manufacturer as well as reduce
it, so getting the measurement right has as much chance of reducing
regulatory burdens as to increase them. We have not yet prepared a
benefit-cost analysis of this provision, but we believe that both
manufacturers and dealers have an interest in ensuring that the CAFE
standards that apply to the cars they sell are accurately measured.
Finally, Federal hours-of-service regulations have applied to
railroads since 1907. Section 9403 of GROW AMERICA would replace the
existing rigid statutory requirements on railroad hours-of-service with
a more flexible provision that would allow the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) to draw upon the most recent scientific findings
related to the effects of fatigue on safety in setting hours-of-service
requirements. The 2008 Rail Safety Improvement Act gave FRA this
regulatory discretion (which all other modal administrations at U.S.
DOT already have) with respect to passenger railroads, but not with
respect to freight railroads. FRA's rulemaking on hours of service for
passenger railroads, issued in 2011, provided more flexibility for
passenger railroads in setting hours of service requirements, so that
regulatory burdens were reduced while safety was improved. Section 9403
of GROW AMERICA is intended to achieve exactly the same sort of win-win
solution for freight railroads.
Senator Scott. Thank you.
Secretary Foxx. On the issues that you raised, as a data-
driven agency, what's proposed in our bill is the product of
our experience and the product of what we have learned in the
different modes that you talked about. In the Federal Motor
Carriers area, for instance, where you mentioned the stoppage
of the motor coaches, what we found is that our enforcement
capabilities are relatively narrow. And we closed 50 companies
down last year that were bad actors. They weren't up to safety
standards.
But our toolbox is relatively limited to catch the bad
actors. And, unfortunately, the outcome, if we don't, is in
some cases injury or death. And we've seen incidents just in
the last year where these things have occurred. So our job and
our goal is to ensure safety. And those regulations there are
based on the data that we have. Now, I'm certainly happy to
have our team reach out to you and to provide you with what we
have on the justification for those?
Senator Scott. Yes.
Secretary Foxx. Happy to do that, sir.
Senator Scott. Thank you. We'll follow up.
Secretary Foxx. OK.
Senator Scott. Thanks a lot.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator Blunt [presiding]. Mr. Secretary, I never expected
that Senator Scott and I would be in charge of this committee
but I like the--well, at least--not right now, but I like the
feel of it. Thanks for staying and thanks for accommodating
members having to come and go as they have. As a matter of
fact, Senator Ayotte and I went to cast one of the two votes
and then came back and we'll eventually catch the second half
of that two vote series.
On positive train control, on March 6, when Mr. Szabo was
here, the Federal Railroad Administrator, we talked about
positive train control. And at the time, I asked him to
consider treating those railroads that could be in compliance
as test cases until everyone is in compliance. You know, where
they could be up and operational and maybe seeing what the
problems with the system are. But it would seem unfair to me
that they would have all of the application that we'd
eventually want that law to have when other railroads weren't
even complying. In your reauthorization proposal, the FRA asked
for the authority to extend the December 2015 deadline on a
case-by-case basis.
So my question is, under this proposal, would the Federal
Railroad Administration treat railroads in full compliance as a
test case so they wouldn't be competitively disadvantaged
against other railroads who simply have failed to meet the
deadline?
Secretary Foxx. I want to make sure that I understand the
question, Senator. Is the question whether we would allow them
to activate positive train control if they had the capability
today versus a company that does not? Just want to make sure I
understand the question.
Senator Blunt. I think the question is, if they activate
positive train control but others do not, would you hold them
to all of the requirements that we would eventually hope
everybody would have to meet or would they merely be a test
case, able to each share that material?
I mean, many of these railroads even run on the same track
for certain periods of time, though they may not share the,
obviously, the same track all the time. Or I guess they'd all
have, at least, access to positive train control. So I think
you have a real inequity here if the railroads that had met the
law have to be in full compliance while everybody else has an
un-penalized waiver.
At the same time, we've seen what happened with the
Affordable Care Act having a test case out there to see how
many problems there are but not necessarily penalizing the
people who are trying to comply for the problems they might be
able to discover and share. It seems to me a more reasonable
place to be.
Secretary Foxx. If it's okay, Senator, I'd like to submit
for the record on that. And primarily because I do know that
there are a handful of companies that have made significant
investments in the positive train control technology. And what
I'd like to get back to you on is the question that I think
you're raising as to whether there's a burden on them in fully
activating and adhering to our standards as articulated in the
previous law that Congress has required. And I'd like to get
back to you on that.
Senator Blunt. Yes, I'd like you to look at that really
carefully because, if we just simply waive the deadline for
some of these railroads but we want the other railroads to be
fully compliant with the law, that doesn't seem fair to me. I
think the government, itself, has been complicit in making it
hard to comply with tower sitings and other problems that
you're fully aware of. I also think it would be helpful to have
some of the railroads testing the system out and up and
running.
But whatever the obligations or penalties are of somehow
failing to be 95 percent in compliance on a given day, or
something, I'd hate to see them penalized for that while we let
other railroads take another couple of years.
So look at that and see if there is anything within the
rule. And I believe when Mr. Szabo was here he seemed to fully
appreciate the unfairness of what might happen there. So look
at that and I'm more than glad to have a response for the
record but I would like to have a response on that.
[The information requested follows:]
Answer. Let me respond to the concerns you've raised. Of course,
DOT does not wish to penalize railroads for being more successful than
others in implementing PTC systems, and the agency recognizes that
there may be issues with PTC systems when they are first put into
revenue service. In the GROW AMERICA Act, FRA requests authority for
provisional certifications to allow railroads more time in revenue
service to identify those issues. Additionally, FRA has proposed a rule
that would reduce the burdens of operating a train suffering a PTC
system failure, and the final rule is currently under Executive Branch
review.
Senator Blunt. One other thing that you may want to do for
the record or not: In the Compliance, Safety, and
Accountability program, CSA program, meant to use crash and
violation data to develop motor carrier vehicle safety scores,
these scores would then be used by FMCSA to target resources
for enforcement and by third parties to use as the basis for
safety-based business decisions. There's a GAO report that came
out in February that found that many of these scores,
generally, don't correlate to actual future crash risk. And the
GAO found serious limitations in this program's ability to
assign fair safety ratings to motor carriers.
So the question is what changes is your department planning
to make to address the GAO report?
Secretary Foxx. We'll submit for the record on that,
Senator.
Senator Blunt. All right.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
[The information requested follows:]
Answer. We strongly disagree that GAO has demonstrated FMCSA's
methodology is not sufficiently reliable for its intended purpose,
which is to prioritize motor carriers for interventions to ensure the
most effective use of the Agency's resources. The CSA program does not
assign safety ratings to motor carriers. The alternative methodology
suggested in GAO's report would result in a prioritization tool that
would only provide meaningful information about large carriers with
little, if any, practical applications for assessing the safety
performance of small and medium carriers that are involved in the
majority of commercial motor vehicle related crashes. We acknowledge
that more data and observations would improve the Safety Measurement
System (SMS) from a statistical confidence interval perspective, which
the Agency will continue to work towards. However, the relatively small
percentage of the active interstate carriers that would be assessed
using GAO's recommended methodology would create far greater oversight
vulnerabilities than the current SMS.
While the Department does not agree with some conclusions of the
GAO report, FMCSA continuously reviews and makes enhancements to its
methodology for the selection of motor carriers for intervention. FMCSA
launched SMS in December 2010 after a period of testing, evaluation,
and unprecedented levels of public input. Since then, FMCSA has made a
number of enhancements to improve the effectiveness of SMS in
identifying motor carriers for interventions. These changes were based
on analysis conducted by the Agency, in addition to recommendations
provided by its stakeholders, including industry and safety advocates.
FMCSA's most recent analysis confirms the effectiveness of SMS as
an intervention tool, finding that the group of carriers identified as
high risk have a future crash rate twice the national average, and
those carriers prioritized for a CSA intervention (for any carrier with
a Behavior Analysis & Safety Improvement Category (BASIC) above the
intervention threshold) have a 79 percent higher future crash rate than
the group of carriers not identified for CSA interventions (i.e., not
above the intervention threshold). As a result, FMCSA continues to
believe that SMS is an effective prioritization tool and is an
improvement over the previous SafeStat system. SMS continues to evolve
and mature as data, feedback, and other relevant information becomes
available.
FMCSA will continue to build on the positive results from the use
of SMS to prioritize carriers for interventions and make adjustments to
hone the effectiveness of the system. The Agency will analyze GAO's
recommendations as part of that process. FMCSA's plans for continuous
improvement include analyzing approaches and aligning improvements to
identify and prioritize carriers for CSA interventions within the
following framework:
Finding carriers with higher crash risk across the spectrum
of carrier sizes with varying amounts of carrier safety data.
This allows the CSA program to hold a large portion of the
motor carrier industry accountable for poor safety management
controls, rather than just focusing on those carriers regularly
being inspected.
Identifying carriers with the worst pattern of on-road
violations and high crash risk. These carriers have the largest
potential for improvement from CSA interventions.
Identifying non-compliance patterns and intervening early to
help carriers establish strong safety practices before crashes
occur.
Monitoring safety performance over time for carriers that
entered the CSA intervention process. This allows FMCSA to
quickly respond and prioritize enforcement resources on
carriers that show trends of worsening safety performance
rather than carriers that are improving.
FMCSA remains committed to considering future changes to SMS
provided such changes improve the Agency's ability to identify unsafe
motor carriers for intervention prioritization.
Senator Blunt. Let me see if I can get one more quick one
in before--we've somehow gotten in charge of this hearing.
[Laughter.]
Senator Blunt. So I'm feeling good about this.
I think those are the two----
Senator Ayotte. I appreciate that.
Senator Blunt. Let me let Senator Ayotte ask her question.
I may come back for one quick question when she's done.
Secretary Foxx. OK.
STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Ayotte. Do I call you Chairman? This is great.
Secretary Foxx, it's great to welcome you here. Thank you.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Senator Ayotte. I know that one of the issues you're
concerned about is the number of the bridges across the nation
that are in desperate need of repair. And one of those bridges
is actually the Sarah Mildred Long Bridge, which connects New
Hampshire and Maine. So it is a bridge that really deals with
Interstate Commerce as well as critical to both states in terms
of the commerce and their seacoast areas.
So what's been happening is that this bridge is critical
not only for automobile traffic, its freight, rail, and cargo
vessels. Because there's a port right there so it kind of hits
all modes of transportation. This bridge has been closed
numerous times for major repairs over the last 5 years. So what
it does is it disrupts the businesses and the residents in the
area for both New Hampshire and Maine.
So the bridge, itself, has been rated as structurally
deficient. It requires immediate replacement to preserve public
safety and support the trade in the Northeast. So both the New
Hampshire and Maine DOTs have worked together on this. So we're
on the same page. We've been partnering as stakeholders with
both states to identify a solution to repairing the bridge.
I'm sure you're aware that we applied for a TIGER Grant
that both states support and all the delegations, on a
bipartisan basis, are supporting. So, given the importance of
this bridge to both states, I would be honored if you would
consider coming to New Hampshire and perhaps joining both the
New Hampshire and Maine delegations to see this bridge. So I
know that not only myself but all my colleagues in both Maine
and New Hampshire are concerned about getting this bridge
repaired. So I would like to invite you to New Hampshire and I
hope you'd be willing to come join us.
And I will assure you that it's very, very pretty in the
spring and summer. So I'm not asking you to come in the winter.
We're past that. And we would love to host you in New
Hampshire. So we'd like to invite you to do that.
Secretary Foxx. Senator, thank you for the invitation and
consider it done. We will schedule that.
Senator Ayotte. Fantastic. I'm so glad you'll come. And I
know that my colleagues will, I'm sure, be glad to join us in
that visit. So thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Senator Ayotte. I wanted to ask you also about the new
truck driver hours-of-service rules that your department put
into place in July 2013. So, I'm hearing a huge amount of
feedback on this. I have legislation I filed on it, of these
rules having an impact on productivity in a negative way. And
drivers, in terms of the truck drivers themselves and thinking
about the benefits versus some of the impacts of this, I think
the rule itself has substantial problems.
I've not only heard from independent and small business
truckers in New Hampshire but, also, I've been surprised at how
many industries are impacted and have been coming to me and
that obviously rely on delivery for whether it's food services,
you know, almost--it has been staggering to me that the impact
that this rule could have.
I know that, to justify these changes, your department
really speculated that the rules themselves would make drivers
healthier and live longer. What plans does your department have
to measure and try to confirm whether these benefits that had
been cited in the rule, that I haven't seen evidence of, will
actually be realized versus the impact on our economy and our
small truckers and our independent truckers and all the
industries that they serve?
Secretary Foxx. Thank you for the question, Senator.
And the hours-of-service rule, like all of our efforts
around safety, is driven by data. And I know that the impacts
of some of our safety regulations sometimes provide limitations
on folks' freedom of movement. But we've done a very deep
amount of study on this and the agency is very convinced that
this is the appropriate standard.
To your question about going forward and testing the
effectiveness of the rule, I would like to submit to you on the
record on that to make sure that we give you as complete a
response as possible there.
Senator Ayotte. I would also like to see the analysis that
was done in terms of the impact on the economy to the people
who will be impacted not only all of the independent truckers,
the small businesses, but as well as the businesses that they
serve who have all come to me and said that this rule is not
workable.
So I hope that your department has taken that analysis. And
so, if you could give me that information too, I'd really
appreciate it.
Secretary Foxx. We'll get you the best information we can.
[The information requested follows:]
Answer. In our regulatory analysis, the Agency estimated that the
changes to the hours of service rule would yield not only safety
benefits in lives saved but also benefits to driver health. The FMCSA
is exploring a number of approaches to more precisely assess the impact
of the rulemaking on the long term health of commercial motor vehicle
drivers and the operations of the motor carrier industry. In recent
weeks we have engaged in several conversations regarding this issue
with industry organizations, congressional staff, and safety advocates.
As the Federal agency responsible for enforcing commercial motor
vehicle safety on our Nation's roadways, we regularly examine the
impact of our regulations on small businesses. And, as part of the
President's Regulatory Retrospective Review, we continuously reach out
to stakeholders to identify ways to advance our safety efforts at
reduced costs to the regulated industry.
The benefits of the rule are not speculative. They are supported by
the best available science on the relationship between increased sleep
(for sleep-deprived groups, like truck drivers) and increased life
expectancy. These benefits will of course be realized over a long
period. FMCSA is considering a range of research projects to evaluate
the effect of the 2011 final rule, including the two-night requirement
that some argue puts an excessive number of trucks on the road early in
the morning. The Agency will announce its research plans in due course
and seek industry input and cooperation in refining them and carrying
out the studies.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you. Thank you so much.
And I do have a question that I'll just submit for the
record, which is related to the issue of non-motorized users
and the safety hazards for non-motorized users in establishing
a separate performance standard for non-motorized
transportation users. That's something I've been interested in
as I've spent part of my life racing bicycles. So this is
important. And I wanted to submit that issue to you for the
record for you to comment.
Secretary Foxx. Absolutely.
[The information requested follows:]
Answer. Pedestrian and bicycle safety is one of my top priorities.
All modes in DOT strongly support this priority and will continue to
work collaboratively to do so. More information about DOT's bicycle and
pedestrian work in this area is available at: http://www.dot.gov/
bicycles-pedestrians.
In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for Safety Performance
Measures (available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-03-11/pdf/
2014-05152.pdf), as required by MAP-21, we are proposing the
establishment of one measure for each of the four areas mandated by
MAP-21: number of fatalities, fatality rate, number of serious
injuries, and serious injury rate. Our proposed measure is consistent
with the focus of the Highway Safety Improvement Program, which is to
reduce all fatalities and serious injuries--including those involving
pedestrians and bicyclists.
States are already using and reporting a pedestrian fatality metric
through NHTSA's Highway Safety Program. Just this spring, NHTSA reached
a further agreement with the Governors Highway Safety Association
(GHSA) to add to the requirement for states to develop a bicycle safety
performance target. These will begin with FY 2015 highway safety
grants. You can be assured that both NHTSA and FHWA are working
cooperatively on safety performance measures to spur states to achieve
the national goal of reducing fatalities and serious injuries for all
users.
The Department supports a data-driven approach to addressing safety
issues. As states update their Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP)--
the statewide-coordinated safety plan that provides a comprehensive
framework for reducing all fatalities and serious injuries on all
public roads--they bring pedestrian and bicyclist interests to the
table and look at crash trends. An SHSP identifies a State's key safety
needs and guides investment decisions toward strategies and
countermeasures with the most potential to save lives and prevent
injuries. The majority of states already include pedestrian and
bicyclist safety in their SHSPs either as a priority emphasis area or a
strategy.
As FHWA moves through the rulemaking process, FHWA will continue to
consider all comments received. The Safety Performance Measures NPRM
specifically asks for comment on how the Department could address non-
motorized safety performance and how State and MPOs consider such data
in their safety programs and in selecting investments.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
Senator Blunt. Let me ask another question. It really is
right along the line of the second question that Senator Ayotte
asked.
On these rules on the surface transportation proposal
that's out now, you suggest that the department be given the
authority to track on-duty non-driving time of drivers and
possibly require motor carriers to compensate employees for
that on-duty non-driving time, which is different because of
the rule; the rule that Senator Ayotte asked about.
Did you offer the driver on-duty non-driving reimbursement
proposal because the new rule has had wage impact on drivers?
Secretary Foxx. I would like to submit on the record on
that, Senator. I think the bottom-line here is that, in the
motor coach--we're not talking about motor coaches here. We're
talking about trucks?
Senator Blunt. We're talking about motor carriers.
Secretary Foxx. Yes.
In that space, there are some realities that are different
than there are for trucks and I just would like to submit for
the record for you on that; if that's OK?
Senator Blunt. I'll let you do that.
[The information requested follows:]
Answer. The Agency's recent proposal in the GROW AMERICA Act would
permit the Agency to adopt, through rulemaking, a requirement that
certain commercial motor vehicle drivers be compensated no less than
the Federal minimum wage for non-driving, on-duty time. The proposal
addresses the issue that drivers are experiencing detention times at
shipping facilities that count against their hours to drive. In many
cases, these drivers are not being paid for their waiting time. We
often hear from drivers that this industry practice places pressure on
drivers to drive beyond the hours of service limits as a matter of
economic necessity. This concern is not limited to truck drivers;
drivers of over-the-road motor coaches also experience on-duty, not
driving periods when they are not compensated. We believe this business
model has a negative impact on highway safety.
And I think that the similar question that Senator Ayotte
asked was the assertion that these new rules, these new restart
rules, would impact driver productivity but would also predict
that drivers would be healthier and live longer. I'm going to
submit a question for the record on that to ask what kind of
data you have that indicates that drivers who are away from
home in these breaks are somehow going to be healthier than
drivers who, by driving under the old rules, actually got home.
I don't find away from home, myself, is as healthy as being at
home. And I doubt if drivers do too.
And then, the other would be well, what's been the wage
impact?
[The information requested follows:]
Answer. The FMCSA has examined the fatigue impact of commercial
motor carrier drivers taking two nights rest between 1 and 5 am during
their 34-hour restart. Scientific studies have shown that this two
night period provides more restorative sleep than a single night's
rest. At this time we do not have specific information on the impact of
home rest in contrast to rest obtained away from home.
Getting home has always been an issue for truck drivers. Before
2003, the industry argued that many drivers were kept waiting (and
frustrated) at truck stops for days on end until their so-called 60-or
70-hour clocks could reset. The Agency adopted a 34-hour restart rule
in 2003 in part to address that problem. Then complaints began to arise
about drivers who were no more than 30 minutes or an hour from home,
but had to shut down for a 34-hour restart. No matter what the limit on
driving or on-duty time, however, there will always be some drivers
just over the line who cannot get home without violating those limits.
As part of each of our rulemakings, the Department is required to
consider the costs to the regulated industry and public for which
transportation services are provided. This is carried out through a
notice-and-comment rulemaking process in which all interested parties
are encouraged to submit information and data on the potential economic
impacts of proposed regulatory actions. The Regulatory Impact Analysis
and benefit-cost analysis for the 2011 hours-of-service final rule
addressed the economic impacts of the rule would have on trucking
operations. The Agency did not receive information from shippers,
receivers or other non-motor carrier entities that would have resulted
in different values for the estimated costs of the rule. The Agency's
economic estimates are available in the public rulemaking docket.
The Department has not attempted to estimate the wage impact of the
2011 final rule, but given industry predictions that driver shortages
will soon reach 100,000, one would expect economic demand to increase
driver wages, irrespective of any marginal effect of the hours-of-
service rules.
Senator Blunt. I understand Senator Nelson is coming back
to ask a question.
Did you establish in earlier testimony, when I wasn't here,
on the Lynchburg derailing? Was one of the tankers have, the
tanker that met the more current standard, that punctured and--
--
Secretary Foxx. My understanding, and again, this is a
matter that is under NTSB review, but my understanding is that
it was a 1232 car.
Senator Blunt. All right.
I think that's all I've got but Senator Nelson is coming
back. If we could just take a moment here.
Secretary Foxx. OK.
Senator Blunt. Anything else you want to talk about,
Secretary?
[Laughter.]
Secretary Foxx. I sing and I dance. I don't know.
Senator Blunt. Exactly.
Well, it's a big job and it's an important job. You know,
one of the things that we're looking at on this committee and
the Finance Committee, both, are ways that we can figure out
how to provide more funding sources for state and local
governments. Senator Bennet and I have a bill that would take
repatriated funds, stranded profits from overseas, let those be
invested in an infrastructure fund to the tune of about $50
billion which then allows $750 billion or so of state and local
infrastructure to happen. And then, Senator Warner and I have a
bill that would be a more traditional funding vehicle but also
for state and local gov called the BRIDGE Act.
I know we've got to figure out how to make this
infrastructure work. And, one of the big challenges for you and
for us, both, is to figure out how we can come up with a
proposal we could all advance that would let us meet our
infrastructure needs. I think there are great opportunities out
there but you have to have the infrastructure it takes to meet
those opportunities.
Secretary Foxx. Senator, you're exactly right. And I want
to applaud you and many others who are trying to think through
innovative ways to help us create more capacity in the system.
The reality is that we are underinvesting in our infrastructure
and we have been for some time. And that's one of the reasons
why the GROW AMERICA Act is seeking to actually increase the
investment in infrastructure.
Clearly there are many ways to get there. And we, of
course, have said all along that we will propose our best
thinking, our best solution, based on the feedback we've gotten
from folks on the Hill. But, as consensus emerges on Capitol
Hill around specific solutions, we've also said that we will
keep an open ear and open mind to ideas that emerge. And so, we
welcome the work that you're doing and others are doing to try
to get there.
Senator Blunt. I think there'll unlikely be one solution
here. There's lots of tools in the toolbox and not every one of
them will be used by everybody but, if all of them could be
used by somebody, then suddenly, you know, we find paths
forward. And what I find, and I'm sure what you hear all the
time, is everybody understands there's a huge infrastructure
need. It's just that, generally, they want somebody else to pay
for it. And, you know, states are struggling with this. We're
struggling with our overall funding. I think you've mentioned
already, you know, the traditional funding is about $18 billion
short of what we've been spending and even that string is
running out and what do we do about that.
Secretary Foxx. It's a tough challenge. And compounding
that is the fact that at the state and local level, as you
point out and I have fairly recent experience with, the
uncertainty is so profound that many of these communities and
these states are slowing down projects. They are slowing down
their planning process such that, even if the Federal
Government all of a sudden figured out a way to fund this stuff
over the long term, it would take a while in some cases for
folks to ramp up because they slowed down their planning
process.
Senator Blunt. Yes.
And they can't even meet the--they feel like they can't so
they're taking these off the books. I think that's true.
And the majority has now reasserted its control and Senator
Nelson is here.
We did no damage while you were voting, Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson [presiding]. Thank you, Senator. I
appreciate it.
And Mr. Secretary, welcome. Sorry for the interruption. Two
votes were held in the interim. So, thank you for being so
patient.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Nelson. Yesterday, the Administration published the
Third National Climate Assessment and it confirmed what a lot
of us suspected: climate change is, indeed, real.
As a matter of fact, I took this committee to Miami Beach
about a month ago and a NASA scientist testified not
projections, not forecast, but measurements on sea-level rise:
In the last 50 years, five to eight inches in Florida. And, of
course, climate change and severe weather can have significant
implications for our infrastructure.
There's a part of A1A Coastal Highway in South Florida that
was severely eroded in Hurricane Sandy. And Hurricane Sandy was
way off the coast. It ended up going up to the Northeast, as we
know.
As the impact of climate change takes its toll on our
infrastructure, what would you suggest that the Department of
Transportation ought to be doing in improving standards and
resiliency of the infrastructure that we are, then, having to
rebuild?
Secretary Foxx. It's a great question, Senator. And you're
exactly right. Climate change is real and it's a reality,
unfortunately, that we have to deal with in the infrastructure
space. And we are mining our experiences all over the country.
I would also point out the Hurricane Sandy area where there
are massive investments in infrastructure and we're learning
how to build to a higher standard. Things like, for example, in
subway systems where the wires were set on the floor. They're
now being set on the ceiling and they're being encased in a
much more resilient material that will survive water. And so,
we're learning about all of this.
I would say that, from our standpoint, it means providing
guidance to the states who are largely the project sponsors, in
our transportation system, on best practices in building to a
higher standard. It also means taking a look at, in some cases,
height; in some cases, material; in some cases, design. And
we're going to continue encouraging.
In our proposal, a lot of what we're doing with our
proposal is actually encouraging best practices in the design
and implementation of projects. And it's an unfortunate
reality, but we do now have to build to a higher standard.
Senator Nelson. In the GROW AMERICA Act, the Administration
proposed establishing a National High Performance Rail System,
especially for Intercity Passenger Rail and considering that
Amtrak ridership is at an all-time high and Americans are not
driving much more than they were 10 years ago. But, in order to
achieve our goal, we've got to have cooperation from the
states.
I have a very unpleasant experience in my State of Florida,
having worked with a lot of other very courageous people for a
long period of time. And we were ready to put high-speed rail
right down the middle of Interstate 4; from Tampa to Orlando.
It would have been completed by next year and we would become
the showcase for the entire country on high-speed rail;
something that the United States is 30 and 40 years behind
Europe and Asia in high-speed rail. They've even got a train
now, I can't remember if it's China or Japan, I think it's
both, that is upwards of 300 miles an hour.
So, despite the fact that there was $2.4 billion on the
table for Florida, it would have paid for 90 percent of the
cost of getting it ready to go. And the Governor did not want
to do it because of political ideological reasons even though
he sat on his own Department of Transportation study that
countered what he was using as the reason; which he was saying
that the high-speed rail was not going to make any money and
the State of Florida would have to pick up the deficit. His own
Florida Department of Transportation study said it would make
money in the very first year. And, by the tenth year, it was
going to be making a considerable amount. And that is just
Tampa to Orlando.
So $2.4 billion that was ready to go and it went to other
states and the project was killed. What are you experiencing
with high-speed rail with other state governments so that we
can further develop intercity rail in the U.S.?
Secretary Foxx. It's a vitally important question, Senator.
And going from a macroperspective, we are going to have 100
million more people in this country by 2050. That's 100 million
more people trying to move around. And the projections are the
congestion is going to increase unless we make substantial
improvements to our surface transportation system. And those
improvements must be multi-modal; can't just be one thing or
another. It needs to be a mix.
We are finding that, despite some of the setbacks that were
experienced early, that many states are now stepping into this.
I was in Texas a couple of weeks ago and there's activity
around trying to get a faster rail connection between Dallas
and Houston, for example. I'm aware of efforts in the state of
Florida now, to do some of that as well.
What is happening is folks are recognizing that our highway
systems, as important as they are, as critical as they are, as
population grows and needs increase, our travel times are going
to increasingly become less predictable. And when you have
strong robust rail systems, you can actually have predictable
travel times. And, for folks that are taking their kids off to
a vacation or whether they're traveling for work, time really
is money. And I think our investments in rail will show
themselves over the long-term.
Senator Nelson. We have a shortage in the Highway Trust
Fund. And yesterday, I raised the issue in the Finance
Committee with the Secretary of Transportation in the
Commonwealth of Virginia. And I asked about their change of the
law back in a previous administration from a gas tax, a state
gas tax, to a sales tax. Tell me what you think about that.
Secretary Foxx. There are a lot of different alternatives
out there. What Virginia did has obviously been ground shifting
in Virginia. There are states that are taxing oil on the
barrel. There are a lot of alternatives out there that have
been tried and some are new, as is the case in Virginia.
What I would say, Senator, is that this is ultimately, in
some respects, a political question. The math, itself, is very
clear. We're going to fall short in the Highway Trust Fund--$63
billion over the next four years. It goes up as you go on with
time.
What's also clear is that the gas tax, the current gas tax
which is not indexed, hasn't been raised since 1993, a gas tax
has a downward facing curve. And that's a result of more
efficient vehicles and lots of other issues. So wherever you
set the level with a gas tax, the curve is still going to be
going down. So there's a cliff out there somewhere.
We recognize these realities and we've put forward our
idea, which is a 4-year, $302 billion bill, funded with pro-
growth business tax reform. But, as I've said earlier, if there
are other ideas that emerge be it the idea that Virginia has
raised, be it more conventional sources, we will listen to
Congress and try to play a constructive role in getting us away
from where we are right now, which is looking insolvency right
in the face.
Senator Nelson. The Panama Canal is expanding and may be
able to accept the larger ships by 2016. So it's going to cause
the huge mega freighters to be able to come straight from Asia
to the East Coast of the United States instead of having to
unload onto rail or truck on the West Coast.
Do you think that we're getting ready, from a
transportation infrastructure, are we getting ready to be able
to accept all of this new cargo capacity?
Secretary Foxx. I think the reviews currently are mixed.
Obviously, our West Coast ports are in really good shape; their
depths are good; they can receive these Post-Panamax vessels
just fine. On the East Coast, we only have two ports that are
ready for Post-Panamax vessels. And, at the same time, there
are countries in the Caribbean, in Europe, that are setting
their ports up for success. And if we're competing against
ports that are ready for the depths of these new vessels, we're
going to lose opportunities. There's no question about it.
And so, I know that there is ongoing work on the water
bill, a very important piece of legislation. But, in addition
to that, from a surface transportation standpoint, not only do
we need to worry about the depths, we also need to worry about
the first and last mile challenges at these ports; the ability
to connect highway systems, rail systems, directly to the ports
so that we can have efficient movement of freight. And that is
another area where we are challenged as a nation, and one of
the reasons why we must have not only a stable Highway Trust
Fund but increased investment in our infrastructure.
Senator Nelson. The port of Miami has been ahead of the
curve. And they've been able to go ahead and get the
infrastructure both with a tunnel as well as the rail
connections that are just about both in place. Rail is already
in place and the tunnel will open this fall. And the depths, by
the time the big ships come, the depths in Miami will be
dredged down to 50 feet.
So they should be able to handle it but others, for
example, Jacksonville, it will be upwards of 2019 by the time
upriver is dredged to sufficient depths. And likewise, other
ports as well. And there are many others that, for example,
Port Everglades at Fort Lauderdale, wants to be able to handle
the Panamax ships. Tampa is another one.
But you're right. It's not just getting the ship up to the
dock. Then it's unloading all of that extra container cargo and
being able to distribute it in an efficient manner.
Final question. You've got a fascinating job because in
your bailiwick is also aviation. And, lo and behold, in
aviation now, in the FAA, is now the FAA role in commercial
spaceflight. My observation is that it is proceeding quite
nicely. It's not fast enough for carrying humans, but those
processes are underway in now taking commercial rockets that
have been quite successful; putting in all the redundancies and
escape systems that make it safe for humans.
And although it looks like we're on a schedule for 2016 for
that to happen, it can't happen fast enough for me because our
only ride now to the International Space Station, which is
longer than a football field with six astronauts and cosmonauts
constantly onboard, our only ride is on the Russian's Soyuz
rocket.
And, although I do not think that there will be any
disruption because of the considerable cooperation between the
Russian Space Program and the American one, one that goes back
to the middle of the Cold War in the Soviet Union, by the way,
when we have Apollo-Soyuz. Nevertheless, you never can quite
predict what Mr. Putin is going to do. I don't think he will do
anything drastic because the Russians can't operate the space
station by themselves. Their commands, many of their commands,
have to go through Houston. Their electricity in the Russian
part of the space station, their electricity, comes from
American systems. So that along with the very strong desire of
the Russian Space Program to cooperate with the Americans, I
think, we'll keep it that way. But you have to worry about it
when you see the escapades of Mr. Putin at this point.
So I just wanted to share that with you. That's not on your
daily diet but it is clearly something that we'd have to face
as we face issues of transportation these days.
Secretary Foxx. Absolutely.
Senator Nelson. Does the staff have any questions?
[Laughter.]
Senator Nelson. OK.
Well, Mr. Secretary, thank you for a very elucidating and
illuminating hearing and the meeting is adjourned.
Secretary Foxx. Thank you, Senator.
[Whereupon, at 4:43 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Index
A. Disparity Studies
Alabama
City of Birmingham: Disparity Study Report, Prepared by
Pendleton, Friedberg, Wilson & Hennessey, P.C. for the City of
Birmingham, Alabama (2007)
Alaska
Alaska Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Study--Availability
and Disparity, Prepared by D. Wilson Consulting Group, LLC for
the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(2008)
Arizona
Availability Analysis and Disparity Study for the Arizona
Department of Transportation: Final Report, Prepared by MGT of
America for the Arizona Department of Transportation (2009)
A Comprehensive Study of the Pima County MWBE Program, Prepared
by D. Wilson Consulting Group, LLC for the Pima County
Procurement Department (2008)
A Comprehensive Disparity Study of the City of Tucson MWBE
Program, Prepared by D. Wilson Consulting Group, LLC for the
Pima County Procurement Department (2008)
The City of Phoenix Minority-, Women-Owned, and Small Business
Enterprise Program Update Study, Prepared by MGT of America,
Inc. for the City of Phoenix (2005)
California
Metro Disparity Study Final Report, Prepared by the BBC
Research & Consulting for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (2010)
OCTA Disparity Study Final Report, Prepared by BBC Research &
Consulting for the Orange County Transportation Authority
(2010)
SANDAG Disparity Study Final Report, Prepared by BBC Research &
Consulting for the San Diego Association of Governments (2010)
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Disparity
Authority, Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting for the San
Diego County Regional Airport Authority (2010)
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Availability and
Utilization Study, Final Report, Prepared by Mason Tillman
Assoc. for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
(2009)
Metrolink Disparity Study Draft Report, Prepared by BBC
Research & Consulting for the Southern California Regional Rail
Authority (2009)
Measuring Minority- and Woman-Owned Construction and
Professional Service Firm Availability and Utilization,
Prepared by CRA International for the San Mateo County Transit
District and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (2008)
Availability and Disparity Study for the California Department
of Transportation, Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting for
the California Department of Transportation (2007)
Measuring Minority-and Woman-Owned Construction and
Professional Service Firm Availability and Utilization,
Prepared by CRA International for the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (2007)
Alameda County Availability Study, Prepared by Mason Tillman
Associates, Ltd. for County of Alameda (2004)
Colorado
Colorado Department of Transportation Statewide Transportation
Disparity Study, Prepared by D. Wilson Consulting Group, LLC
for the Colorado Department of Transportation (2009)
Race, Sex, and Business Enterprise: Evidence from Denver,
Colorado, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the City and
County of Denver, Colorado (2006)
Connecticut
The City of Bridgeport Disparity Study Regarding Minority
Participation in Contracting, presented by Mason Tillman
Associates, Ltd. for the City of Bridgeport Connecticut (2005)
Florida
The State of Minority and Women Owned Enterprise: Evidence from
Broward County, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for
Broward County, Florida (2010)
Multi-Jurisdictional Disparity Study Consultant Services:
Hillsborough County Aviation Authority and City of Tampa,
Prepared by Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. for the Hillsborough
County Aviation Authority Office and City of Tampa, Florida
(2006)
Georgia
Georgia Department of Transportation Disparity Study, Prepared
by BBC Research & Consulting for the Georgia Department of
Administration (2012)
Race, Sex, and Business Enterprise: Evidence from Augusta,
Georgia, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for August-
Richmond County Georgia (2009)
Consortium Disparity Study Update, Prepared by BBC Research &
Consulting for the City of Albany, Georgia; Dougherty County,
Georgia; Dougherty County School System; Albany Water, Gas &
Light Commission; and Albany Tomorrow, Inc. (2008)
City of Atlanta Disparity Study, Prepared by Griffin and Strong
for the City of Atlanta (2006)
Georgia Department of Transportation Disparity Study, Prepared
by Boston Research Group for the State of Georgia (2005)
Hawaii
The State of Minority and Women Owned Enterprise: Evidence from
Hawai'i, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the Hawaii
Department of Transportation (2010)
Idaho
A Study to Determine DBE Availability and Analyze Disparity in
the Transportation Contracting Industry in Idaho, Prepared by
BBC Research & Consulting for the Idaho Transportation
Department (2007)
Illinois
Report on the City of Chicago's MWBE Program, Prepared by David
Blanchflower, Ph.D., for the City of Chicago M/WBE Program
(2009)
Race, Sex, and Business Enterprise: Evidence from the State of
Illinois and the Chicago Metropolitan Area, Prepared by NERA
Economic Consulting for the Illinois State Toll Highway
Authority (2006)
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Availability Study, Prepared
by NERA Economic Consulting, for the Illinois Department of
Transportation (2004)
Disparity Study for the City of Peoria, Prepared by Kevin
O'Brien, Ph.D., for the City of Peoria (2004)
Indiana
Indiana Disparity Study: Final Report, Prepared by BBC Research
& Consulting for the Indiana Department of Administration
(2010)
Iowa
City of Davenport Disparity Study Regarding Minority and Women
Participation in Contracting, Prepared by Mason Tillman
Associates, Ltd. for the Davenport, Iowa (2009)
Maryland
The State of Minority and Women Owned Enterprise: Evidence from
Maryland, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the Maryland
Department of Transportation (2011)
Race, Sex, and Business Enterprise: Evidence from the City of
Baltimore, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the City of
Baltimore, MD (2007)
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Availability Studies Prepared
for the Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway
Administration, Maryland Transit Administration, Maryland
Aviation Administration, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting
for the Maryland Department of Transportation (2006)
The Prince George's County Government: Disparity Study Final
Report, Prepared by D.J. Miller & Associates, Inc. for the
Prince George's County Government (2006)
Race, Sex and Business Enterprise: Evidence from the State of
Maryland, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the Maryland
Department of Transportation (2006)
Massachusetts
Race, Sex and Business Enterprise: Evidence from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Vol. I, Prepared by NERA
Economic Consulting for the Massachusetts Housing Finance
Agency (2006)
Minnesota
The State of Minority and Women Owned Enterprise: Evidence from
Minneapolis, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the City
of Minneapolis (2010)
The State of Minnesota Joint Availability and Disparity Study,
Prepared by MGT of America, Inc., for the Minnesota Department
of Transportation (2010)
A Disparity Study for the City of Saint Paul and the Saint Paul
Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Saint Paul, Minnesota,
Prepared by MGT of America for the City of Saint Paul and the
Redevelopment Authority of Saint Paul (2008)
Race, Sex and Business Enterprise: Evidence from the State of
Minnesota, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the
Minnesota State Department of Transportation (2005)
Missouri
Race, Sex, and Business Enterprise: Evidence from the St Louis
Metropolitan Statistical Area 1979-2004, Prepared by NERA
Economic Consulting for the Bi-State Development Agency (2005)
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Availability Study, for the
Missouri Department of Transportation, Prepared by NERA
Economic Consulting for the Missouri State Department of
Transportation (2004)
Montana
Disparity Study for the Montana Department of Transportation:
Final Report, Prepared by D. Wilson Consulting Group, LLC for
the Montana Department of Transportation (2009)
Nevada
Availability and Disparity Study for the Nevada Department of
Transportation, Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting for the
Nevada Department of Transportation (2007)
New Jersey
State of New Jersey Construction Services: Disparity Study
2003-2004, Prepared by Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. for the
New Jersey Disparity Study Commission (2006)
State of New Jersey Construction Services: Disparity Study
2000-2002, Prepared by Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. for the
New Jersey Disparity Study Commission (2005)
State of New Jersey Disparity Study of Procurement in
Professional Services, other Services, and Goods and
Commodities, Prepared by Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. for the
New Jersey Department of State (2005)
Analysis of Essex County Procurement and Contracting: Final
Report, Prepared by the University of Minnesota Disparity Study
Research Team for the County of Essex Disparity Study
Commission (2005)
New York
The State of Minority- and Women-Owned Business Enterprises:
Evidence from New York, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting
for the New York State Department of Economic Development
(2010)
The City of New York Disparity Study, presented by Mason
Tillman Associates, Ltd. for the City of New York (2005)
North Carolina
City of Charlotte: Disparity Study, Prepared by MGT of America,
Inc., for the City of C Charlotte (2011)
Measuring Business Opportunity: A Disparity Study of NCDOT's
State and Federal Programs, Prepared by Equant for the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (2009)
North Carolina Department of Transportation Second Generation
Disparity Study, Prepared by MGT of America, Inc. for the State
of North Carolina (2004)
Ohio
The State of Minority and Women Owned Business Enterprise:
Evidence from Cleveland (2012)
The State of Minority and Women Owned Enterprise: Evidence from
Northeast Ohio, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (2010)
A Second-Generation Disparity Study, Prepared by MGT of
America, Inc. for the City of Dayton, Ohio (2008)
Oklahoma
City of Tulsa Business Disparity Study, Prepared by MGT of
America, Inc. for the City of Tulsa (2010)
Oregon
City of Portland Disparity Study, Prepared by BBC Research &
Consulting for the Portland Development Commission (2011)
A Disparity Study for the Port of Portland, Oregon, Prepared by
MGT for America, Inc., for the Port of Portland, Oregon (2009)
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Disparity Study, Prepared by
MGT of America, Inc. for the Oregon Department of
Transportation (2007)
Pennsylvania
City of Philadelphia, Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Disparity Study,
Prepared by Econosult Corporation for the City of Philadelphia
(2012)
City of Philadelphia, Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Disparity Study,
Prepared by Econosult Corporation for the City of Philadelphia
(2011)
City of Philadelphia, Fiscal Year 2009 Annual Disparity Study,
Prepared by Econosult Corporation for the City of Philadelphia
(2010)
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of General Services:
Disparity Study in Building Construction and Building Design,
Prepared by Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. for the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania Department of General Services (2007)
Minority Business Shares of Prime Contracts Approved by the
Board of Pittsburgh Public Schools, January-September 2005,
Prepared by the University of Pittsburgh Center on Race and
Social Problems (2006)
South Carolina
A Business Underutilization Causation Analysis Study for the
City of Columbia, Prepared by MGT of America, Inc. for the
State of South Carolina (2006)
Tennessee
City of Memphis, Tennessee, Comprehensive Disparity Study,
Prepared by Griffin and Strong, P.C., for the City of Memphis
(2010)
Race, Sex, and Business Enterprise: Evidence from Memphis,
Tennessee, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the
Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority (2008)
State of Tennessee Department of Transportation, Prepared by
Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. for the Tennessee Department of
Transportation (2007)
Final Report for Development and Revision of Small, Minority
and Women Enterprise Program, Nashville International Airport,
Prepared by Griffin & Strong, P.C. for the Metropolitan
Nashville Airport Authority (2007)
Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County:
Disparity Study Final Report, Prepared by Griffin and Strong
for Nashville and Davidson County (2004)
Texas
The State of Minority and Women Owned Enterprise in
Construction: Evidence from Houston, Prepared by NERA Economic
Consulting for the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
(2012)
A Historically Underutilized Business Disparity Study of State
Contracting 2009 Final Report, Prepared by MGT of America, Inc.
for the State of Texas (2010)
San Antonio Regional Business Disparity Causation Analysis
Study, Prepared by MGT of America for the City of San Antonio,
Texas (2009)
Race, Sex, and Business Enterprise: Evidence from the City of
Austin, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the City of
Austin, TX (2008)
Quantitative Analysis of the Availability of Minority- and
Women-Owned Businesses and their Utilization by the Corpus
Christi Regional Transportation Authority, Prepared by Jim Lee,
Ph.D., for the Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority
(2007)
The City of Houston Disparity Study, Prepared by Mason Tillman
Assoc., Ltd. (2006)
Utah
Race, Sex, and Business Enterprise: Evidence from the State of
Utah, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the Salt Lake
City Departments of Airports (2009)
Virginia
A Disparity Study for the Commonwealth of Virginia, Prepared by
MGT of America, Inc. for the Commonwealth of Virginia (2010)
A Procurement Disparity Study of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
Prepared by MGT of America, Inc. for the Commonwealth of
Virginia (2004)
Washington
2012 DBE Program Disparity Study, Prepared by BBC Research &
Consulting for the Washington State Department of
Transportation (2012)
Race, Sex and Business Enterprise: Evidence from the State of
Washington, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the
Washington State Department of Transportation (2005)
Washington D.C.
2010 Disparity Study, Final Report, Prepared by Mason Tillman
Associates, Ltd., for the Washington Suburban Sanitary
Commission (2011)
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission 2005 Disparity Study:
Summary and Recommendations, Prepared by BBC Research &
Consulting for the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
(2005)
Wisconsin
Disparity Study for the City of Milwaukee, Prepared by D.
Wilson Consulting Group, LLC for the City of Milwaukee (2010)
City of Wisconsin, Study to Determine the Effectiveness of the
City's Emerging Business Enterprise Program, Prepared by Mason
Tillman Associates, Ltd. For the City of Milwaukee, Wisc.
(2007)
B. Studies and Reports
Expert Report in Midwest Fence Corp. v. DOT
Expert Report in Geyer Signal Inc. v. Minnesota DOT
Expert Report in Rothe Dev. Inc. v. DOD and SBA
Frances Amatucci, Women Entrepreneurs Securing Business
Angel Financing: Tales from the Field, Venture Capital (2004)
Ana Aparicio, Hispanic-Owned Business Enterprises in the
Construction Industry of Greater Chicago: Responses and
Personal Perspectives, for the City of Chicago M/WBE Program
(2009)
Ana Aparicio, Women-Owned Business Enterprises in the
Construction Industry of Greater Chicago: Responses and
Personal Perspectives, for the City of Chicago M/WBE Program
(2009)
Asian American Justice Center, Equal Access: Unlocking
Government Doors for Asian Americans: Public Contracting Laws
and Policies (2008)
S. Ann Becker and Donn Miller-Kermani, Women-Owned Small
Businesses in the Federal Procurement Market, Journal of
Contract Management 131 (2008)
Dana Bible, Kathy Hill, Discrimination: Women in Business,
Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict,
Volume 11, No. 1 (2007)
Lloyd Blanchard, Bo Zhao, and John Yinger, Do Credit Market
Barriers Exists for Minority and Women Entrepreneurs?, Center
for Policy Research, Maxwell School, Syracuse University,
Working Paper No. 74 (2005)
David. G. Blanchflower and Jon Wainwright, An Analysis of
the Impact of Affirmative Action Programs on Self-Employment in
the Construction Industry, National Bureau of Economic
Research, Working Paper 11793 (2008)
David. G. Blanchflower, Minority Self-Employment in the
United States and the Impact of Affirmative Action Programs,
National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 13972
(2008)
Boston Consulting Group, The New Agenda for Minority
Business Development (2005)
Ken Cavalluzzo & John Wolken, Competition, Small Business
Financing, and Discrimination: Evidence from a New Survey,
75(4) Journal of Business 641 (2005)
Ken Cavalluzzo & John Wolken, Small Business Loan Turndowns,
Personal Wealth, and Discrimination, 78(6) Journal of Business
2153 (2005)
Susan Coleman, Access to Debt Capital for Women and Minority
Owned Small Firms: Does Educational Attainment Have an Impact,
9(2) Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 127 (2004)
Susan Coleman, Is There a Liquidity Crisis For Small, Black-
Owned Firms, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship (2005)
Ernst & Young, 2008 Catalyst Census of Women Corporate
Officers and Top Earners of the Fortune 500, available at
http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/2008-catalyst-census-women-
corporate-officers-and-top-earners-fortune-500 (last visited,
April 3, 2014)
Robert W. Fairlie and Alicia M. Robb, Minority Business
Development Agency Disparities in Capital Access between
Minority and Non-Minority-Owned Businesses: The Troubling
Reality of Capital Limitations Faced by MBEs, Prepared for the
U.S. Department of Commerce (2010)
Robert W. Fairlie and Alicia M. Robb, Why are Black-Owned
Businesses Less Successful Than White-Owned Businesses? The
Role of Families, Inheritances, and Business Human Capital, 25
Journal of Labor Economics 289 (2007)
Robert W. Fairlie, Minority Entrepreneurship, The Small
Business Economy, produced under contract with the SBA, Office
of Advocacy (2005)
Cedric Herring, Barriers to the Utilization of Targeted
Program Contractors: Results from Interviews of African
American Contractors, for the City of Chicago M/WBE Program
(2009)
Insight Center for Community Economic Development, The
Impact of State Affirmative Procurement Policies on Minority-
and Women-Owned Businesses in Five States, Best Practices,
Imperfections, and Challenges in State Inclusive Business
Programs (2007)
Yvonne M. Lau, Profiles on Asian Americans in Construction--
A Study for the City of Chicago M/WBE Sunset Project, for the
City of Chicago M/WBE Program (2009)
Sang-Suk Lee and Diane Denslow, A Study on the Major
Problems of U.S. Women-Owned Small Businesses, Journal of Small
Business Strategy, 15 (2) (2005)
Ying Lowrey, Minorities in Business: A Demographic Review of
Minority Business Ownership, 298 U.S. Small Business
Administration (2007)
Ying Lowrey, Dynamics of Minority-Owned Employer
Establishments, 1997-2001, 251U.S. Small Business
Administration (2005)
Karlyn Mitchell & Douglas K. Pearce, Availability of
Financing to Small Firms Using the Survey of Small Business
Finances, 257 U.S. Small Business Administration (2005)
Craig A. Peterson and James Philpot, Women's Roles on U.S.
Fortune 500 Boards: Director Expertise and Committee
Memberships, 72 Journal of Business Ethics 177 (2007)
Myron Quon, Discrimination Against Asian American Business
Enterprises: The Continuing Need for Affirmative Action in
Public Contracting, Asian American Policy Review 41 (2008)
Howard Rasheed, Capital Access Barriers to Government
Procurement Performance: Moderating Effects of Ethnicity,
Gender, and Education, Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship (2004)
Elaine Reardon, Nancy Nicosia and Nancy Y. Moore, The
Utilization of Women-Owned Small Businesses in Federal
Contracting, Kauffman-RAND Institute for Entrepreneurship
Public Policy (2007)
Alicia M. Robb, & Robert Fairlie, Access to Financial
Capital Among U.S. Businesses: The Case of African American
Firms Constraints, 613 Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science (2007)
Hal Salzman and Signe-Mary McKernan, Capital Access for
Women, Profile and Analysis of U.S. Best Practice Programs, The
Urban Institute (2007)
Jonathan Taylor, Income and Wealth Transfer Effects of
Discrimination in Small Business Lending, 32 (3/4) Review of
Black Political Economy 87 (2005)
Siri Terjesen, Ruth Sealy and Val Singh, Women Directors on
Corporate Boards: A Review and Research Agenda, 17 Corporate
Governance: An International Review 320 (2009)
Jon Wainwright, Disparity Study Methodology, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Report (2010)
U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Business Owners--
Characteristics of Business Owners: 2007, available at http://
www.census.gov/econ/sbo/getsof.html?07cbo (last visited April
3, 2014).
U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Business Owners--Women-Owned
Firms: 2007, available at http://www.census.gov/econ/sbo/
getsof.html?07women (last visited April 3, 2014)
U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development
Agency, Accelerating Job Creation and Economic Productivity:
Expanding Financing Opportunities for Minority Businesses
(2004)
U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development
Agency, Characteristics of Minority Businesses and
Entrepreneurs, An Analysis of the 2002 Survey of Business
Owners (2008)
U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development
Agency, The State of Minority Business Enterprises, An Overview
of the 2002 Survey of Business Owners, Number of Firms, Gross
Receipts, and Paid Employees (2006)
United States Department of Labor, Quick Stats on Women
Workers, 2010, available at http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/
QS-womenwork2010.htm (last visited April 3, 2014)
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Hon. Anthony R. Foxx
Question 1. This country is desperately lagging behind in
infrastructure investment. With funding hard to come by, and what
funding is available primarily going through stove-piped modal
administrations except for the limited funds in the TIGER program, we
have to think about how we can get the biggest bang for our investments
across modes. Given that the lion's share of infrastructure funding is
channeled through administrative siloes, how can we optimize strategic
investments in multimodal projects to facilitate efficient freight
movement?
Answer. To optimize strategic investments, the Department must
first identify and prioritize the multimodal projects that will
facilitate efficient freight movement. The designation of the National
Freight Network is the first step to identifying the corridors and
connectors that are most important to the movement of freight. However,
it is necessary that the National Freight Network is a multimodal
designation, and not one that is solely focused on highways and
intermodal connections to highways.
Another way to optimize strategic investments is to utilize data to
inform investment decisions. The Department is focused on developing
better data and forecasting tools so that these are available at the
federal, state, and local level. Wider use of benefit-cost analysis for
projects can help to prioritize investments that provide the largest
benefits relative to the cost. States are currently required to develop
risk-based asset management plans for their highway systems.
Encouraging states to develop asset management plans for their entire
freight transportation systems would help in planning future
investments.
With limited Federal funding available, project financing and
public private partnerships are an increasingly important tool for
delivering major projects. The Department maintains several programs
which provide project finance assistance to State, local, and private
project sponsors, reducing project costs and incentivizing greater
investment. The Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation
Act program (TIFIA) provides long-term, flexible financing to highway
and transit projects with dedicated revenue sources, which can make
public-private partnerships (P3s) an attractive option. As of June 1,
2014, TIFIA loans have supported 45 projects with more than $17 billion
in credit assistance, contributing to nearly $64 billion in
infrastructure investment. TIFIA has supported critical freight
projects such as the Port of Miami Tunnel and Replacement of the Gerald
Desmond Bridge. Other projects such as the Surface Transportation
Private Activity Bond program (PABs) and the Railroad Rehabilitation
and Improvement Financing (RRIF) have incentivized greater private
sector investment in freight infrastructure. Moreover, RRIF loans allow
financing of intermodal projects.
Question 2. Would it make sense to move beyond the current
formulaic funding programs toward a multi-modal, strategic model?
Answer. There are certainly limitations to the formula funding
model. The current formulaic funding makes it difficult to fund
projects without a highway-centric focus. Additionally, the formula
funds must be divided to fund both transit and freight based projects.
Finally, because individual states determine where the formula funding
is spent, there is a possibility that national or regional freight
projects of significance are overlooked.
In the GROW AMERICA Act, the Department proposes to create a
Multimodal Freight Investment Program that would include an incentive
grant program and a discretionary grant program. The discretionary
program would award grants to the projects that would have the greatest
impact on the safety, efficiency, and state of good repair of the
freight transportation system. The incentive grant program would reward
states that have engaged multimodal stakeholders in a comprehensive
freight planning process. The most important features of these programs
are that they are multimodal and dedicated to freight investment. The
Multimodal Freight Investment Program would help fund major national
freight projects and allow the formula funds to target important state
priorities.
Question 3. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that
the Highway Trust Fund, the main source of funding for highway and
transit programs, will run out of cash to pay for day-to-day operations
before MAP-21 expires at the end of the fiscal year--likely sometime
over the summer. DOT recently came out and gave a more concrete date,
saying the Highway Trust Fund will encounter a cash shortfall by August
29, 2014. As a result, construction projects around the country could
slow or come to a complete stop during the peak of construction season.
How much additional funding will the Highway Trust Fund need to get
through the remainder of the fiscal year?
Answer. Based on our most recent data, the Highway Trust Fund would
need an additional $5 billion before the end of FY 2014 and
approximately $9 billion to get through the current calendar year.
Question 4. Will uncertainty leading up to HTF insolvency set back
construction projects around the country? Are we seeing that occur
already?
Answer. The impending Highway Trust Fund cash shortfall will have
an impact on construction projects in the U.S. Some states have
indicated they plan to slow down or put construction projects on hold
due to uncertainty about Federal highway funding. Several other states
have publicly announced that they are evaluating the situation and
considering various options, but have not yet announced that they are
delaying/suspending projects. I would note here that ramp-up and ramp-
down costs for construction projects can increase total project costs
and project completion times significantly.
States that have already taken action:
Arkansas--issued an Information Release indicating that they
are suspending some highway construction projects due to the
impending HTF shortfall.
Georgia--has announced they will be suspending its listing
of highway construction projects beginning in July.
Ohio--has decided to delay their Statewide Transportation
Improvement Plan (STIP) by one year.
Rhode Island--has halted advertising of all new, non-
emergency highway projects.
Tennessee--has announced the delay of certain construction
projects pending a fix to the HTF shortfall.
Vermont--has announced that they will delay awarding
projects this summer until the HTF shortfall is resolved.
Question 5. Last week, the Administration introduced their 4-year,
$302 billion surface transportation bill. This proposal includes
substantial funding for passenger and freight rail programs, freight
and goods movement, and other general safety provisions. As we all
know, increases in funding at this time are a difficult sell; however,
we are confronted with an outdated, overburdened surface transportation
system that is in need of serious repair. What all is on the table to
fund the Administration's surface transportation proposal?
Answer. The Administration proposes to fund the GROW AMERICA Act
through a pro-growth, business tax reform, without adding to the
deficit. The President's Budget outlined a proposal to dedicate $150
billion in one-time transition revenue from pro-growth business tax
reform to address the funding crisis facing surface transportation
programs and increase infrastructure investment. This amount is
sufficient to not only fill the current funding gap in the Highway
Trust Fund, but increase surface transportation investment over current
authorized levels by nearly $90 billion over the next four years. When
taking into account existing funding for surface transportation, this
plan will result in a total of $302 billion being invested over four
years putting people back to work modernizing our transportation
infrastructure. The Administration believes that a comprehensive
approach to reforming our business taxes can help create jobs and spur
investment, while ensuring a fairer and more equitable tax system that
eliminates current loopholes that reward companies for moving profits
overseas and allow them to avoid paying their fair share. The
Administration is putting forward this pro-growth financing plan to
encourage bipartisan efforts to support a visionary infrastructure
plan, but is open to all ideas for how to achieve this important
objective, and will work closely with Members of Congress of both
parties on a solution that will invest in more job creating
transportation projects.
Question 6. Fuel taxes to support the HTF have not been raised in
over 20 years. Other funding proposals, such as vehicle miles traveled
(VMT), while they may have some merit, cannot be stood up overnight.
Given these constraints, what do you see as the most fair and consumer-
friendly way to raise revenue in the short-term?
Answer. The GROW AMERICA proposal, as we have articulated it, would
accomplish the funding needs in the short term. We think it is the
right way to go particularly given the urgency of the moment. Our ears
and minds are open to what emerges from the Hill however. We would like
to be in the discussions at a table with you.
Question 7. Last year, Americans took 10.7 billion trips on public
transportation, the highest annual transit ridership in 57 years.
Amtrak ridership continues to be at record levels, and since 1997 has
grown faster than any other major travel mode in the U.S. Recent
studies have also found that Americans drive no more miles than they
did in 2004, and that individuals age 16 to 24 drive 23 percent fewer
miles than they did a decade ago. I point out these statistics to show
that transportation trends in America are changing. Is the Department
of Transportation noticing these same trends, and if so, what does this
mean for the future of transportation in this country, specifically
transportation funding?
Answer. The Department's data on travel patterns reveal similar
trends and suggest that these trends will continue for the foreseeable
future. These trends first became apparent beginning with the ``great
recession'' in late 2007--early 2008, but the general trajectory of
these travel patterns has not changed despite the improving economy.
This suggests that we will continue to experience increased public
transportation and intercity passenger rail ridership, while vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) decreases.
There are many factors that are causing this long-term shift, but
the most prevalent are changing demographics and changing lifestyles.
There is ongoing generational shift in lifestyle preferences not only
here in the United States, but around the world. A significant portion
of Generation X and Y, unlike the Baby Boomers, and generations before
them, are choosing to live in urban areas, including in densely
populated urban cores where the need for driving is significantly lower
and the availability of quality transit service and other alternatives
is higher. Some choose to do so for economic reasons and some for
social reasons. We cannot say whether their residential location and
travel patterns will continue to differ from the older generation as
the economy improves and the younger generation begins to have
children, but we need to be adaptable to whichever long term patterns
emerge.
Though these are positive trends, they ironically pose a threat to
the future of our current system for surface transportation funding
which relies predominantly on Federal fuel tax revenues. Even if we
start to experience an increase in VMT, motor fuel tax revenue will
continue to be affected by the increased number of fuel-efficient
vehicles on the market. While fuel-efficient vehicles have been
beneficial to consumers and our environment, they contribute to a
reduction in the Highway Trust Fund's resources.
Current FHWA data indicate that the Highway Account of the Highway
Trust Fund will likely face another shortfall before the end of FY
2014. While the timing of the forecast is subject to change, there is
little doubt that another funding crisis will soon be upon us. It is
imperative that we recognize the long-term trends facing the Nation and
their ramification on the future of the surface transportation funding.
Finding a sustainable solution that acknowledges these factors should
be our collective goal. After all, maintaining and improving our
highway and transit infrastructure is vital to our economy and our way
of life.
Question 8. Most transportation programs are broken down into modal
silos and are not accountable to any unifying strategic vision or
national purpose. A major reason for this is the lack of a cohesive
national transportation plan that examines actual travel trends and
future needs to determine how the modes inter-relate and what
investments are necessary. What can be done to better integrate our
Nation's transportation programs and coordinate investments across
modes?
Answer. The Department recognizes that there is a great need for
national transportation plans that unify and coordinate national
transportation programs so that investment can be directed to where it
is needed most. There are two separate efforts currently underway to
address national transportation system planning. The Department is
beginning to develop a 30-year National Transportation Agenda that will
consider current and future travel trends, as well as how each mode
fits into the future of the national transportation system. The intent
of the 30-year National Transportation Agenda is to spur future
discussion of the long-range transportation needs of the country and
identify areas where future investment is needed.
Additionally, MAP-21 directed the Department to draft a National
Freight Strategic Plan and a Freight Transportation Conditions and
Performance Report. The Department is currently working towards a final
draft of the Freight Conditions and Performance Report that is expected
to be completed later this year. Preliminary work on the National
Freight Strategic Plan has already begun and will be completed in 2015.
The National Freight Strategic Plan will emphasize the multimodal
interactions that are necessary for the efficient movement of freight.
One goal will be to identify the chokepoints and bottlenecks,
particularly at intermodal connectors, where investment is necessary.
The Department believes that both of these efforts will provide a
unifying strategic vision to coordinate and prioritize investments
going forward. Facilitating greater cooperation between the different
modes is an important goal for the Department, particularly in making
investment decisions. The Department is striving towards this goal and
is continuing to realize improvements.
Question 9. Congress has authorized the DOT's Disadvantaged
Business Enterprises (DBE) program in every surface transportation bill
since 1982. The purpose of these provisions was to address past and
current discrimination against minority and women-owned small
businesses, and to ensure that they are provided equal opportunity to
compete for DOT-assisted transportation projects, such as the
construction of highways. Does race or gender discrimination continue
to impact transportation programs? Please provide any additional
information and evidence DOT has compiled on this topic.
Answer. Over the past several decades, the Department of
Transportation and other Federal agencies have submitted similar
disparity and other studies to Congress on which Congress has relied in
part to find that there is a compelling need to authorize the
Department of Transportation to create and to maintain its
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program. Unfortunately, as
demonstrated by numerous more recent studies and data, including those
retained in Committee files, although significant progress has occurred
due to the enactment of the DBE program, discrimination remains a
significant barrier for minority- and women-owned businesses seeking to
do business in highway and transit-related markets.
Question 10. DOT is currently conducting a comprehensive truck size
and weight study as required by MAP-21. Recently, the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) Peer Review Committee issued a report highlighting
what they believed to be methodological flaws in the study. However,
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has stated that they do not
intend to make any changes to the truck size and weight study
methodology. Does DOT plan to make any changes to the truck size and
weight study to address the concerns identified in the NAS report?
Answer. The NAS Peer Review Panel recommended a consistent
organization of the elements within each of five desk scans, a clear
linkage between material in each desk scan and its corresponding
project plan, and a synthesis of methods and results from prior studies
to the results of this Study. The Department agrees with these
recommendations and is incorporating these changes in the final desk
scans and related documents.
Question 11. In their report, NAS also noted that there were
``significant weaknesses'' in the data collections and analytical
methods FHWA was using. Do you agree with that assessment? Please
provide additional details to support your position.
Answer. Although in none of the five major analysis areas did the
NAS Peer Review Committee identify modeling approaches or data sources
omitted from the desk scans that would be clearly superior to those
selected by the USDOT study team, USDOT recognizes that in some study
areas, despite using the most appropriate models and data available,
there are some data limitations and methodological challenges to
undertaking a robust and comprehensive analysis. The Department intends
to describe these limitations and challenges in the Study.
Question 12. The NAS report believes that the study is relying on
deficient methods because there is not a sufficient amount of time to
develop appropriate methods given the congressional timeline. NAS
believes that these deficient methodologies can lead to inaccurate
results. Given the public policy and safety ramifications that this
study will have, do you believe that the study can be successfully and
accurately completed according to the congressionally mandated
timeline? What happens if you don't meet the deadline?
Answer. We are focused on getting this Study right. The Department
is committed to an objective, data-driven, approach that uses
appropriate methods and is responsive to the requirements set forth in
MAP-21. The Department takes congressional deadlines seriously, but if
it takes longer than the Congressional deadline to produce a
satisfactory Study, then we will inform Congress and take that
additional time.
Question 13. MAP-21 included mandatory requirements for the
issuance of four important occupant protection regulations. DOT issued
the seat belt rule last year. However, final rules for improving
motorcoach roof strength, anti-ejection protection and rollover
prevention technology are required to be issued by October 1, 2014. To
date, there have been not been any NPRMs issued for these safety
standards. Will DOT meet the October 1, 2014 statutory deadlines for
these safety standards? If not, when do you believe these rules will be
issued?
Answer. NHTSA is working diligently to implement the various motor
vehicle and highway safety improvements contained in MAP-21, as well as
other rulemaking, enforcement, vehicle research, and highway safety
activities that reduce highway injuries and deaths. For example, in
2013, NHTSA issued a rule requiring seatbelts on motorcoaches. The
agency already issued the NPRM for motorcoach rollover crash avoidance,
which is part of ``Electronic Stability Control Systems for Heavy
Vehicles,'' and plans to issue the final rule this year. The agency
plans to issue the NPRM for motorcoach roof strength, also known as
``Motorcoach Rollover Structural Integrity,'' this year, and will
develop a final rule schedule after receiving and analyzing comments on
the proposal. We have not yet determined a schedule for the NPRM for
motorcoach anti-ejection safety measures.
Question 14. The Administration's GROW AMERICA Act recently
submitted to Congress proposes to modify the requirement for safety
reviews of new entrant motor carriers by making the reviews
discretionary rather than mandatory, which current law requires. DOT's
report language states that the new entrant safety reviews have been
ineffective and that new entrant knowledge testing, which has not yet
been proposed, will address this shortcoming. What analysis has DOT
performed of the new entrant review methodology to determine the reason
that safety reviews are ineffective?
Answer. FMCSA believes that safety audits conducted under the New
Entrant Safety Assurance Program, in some cases, are an effective means
to hold newly established motor carriers accountable for having
appropriate safety management controls. This is particularly true in
the case of companies run by individuals with little experience in the
industry and little exposure to Federal safety regulations or industry
best practices. That is not always the case, however.
The Department based its proposal for increased flexibility in
conducting safety audits on a program evaluation of the New Entrant
Safety Assurance Program (NESAP) that was initiated in FY 2012. The
preliminary results of the study found that new entrant carriers are
indeed overrepresented in crashes. Overall, new entrant carriers have a
crash rate that ranges from 22.3 percent to 40.2 percent higher than
non-new entrant carriers during the period 2004 to 2009; and 28.8
percent higher than non-new entrant carriers in the first full year
after the New Entrant Safety Assurance Process Final Rule published
December 16, 2008, with an effective date of December 16, 2010. In
addition, the study found sufficient evidence to conclude that new
entrant carriers violate safety rules more frequently than existing
carriers. Despite this data indicating the need for new carriers to
receive an intervention, the pre-safety audit and post-safety audit
analysis indicated that new entrant carrier crash rates increased
counter-intuitively after the safety audit by about 10 percent during
the 2003-2009 period. While the crash results were better during the
period of 2010 through 2012, the new entrant crash rate performance
after conducting the safety audit failed to demonstrate any measureable
improvement. There is evidence that carrier compliance with regulations
improves modestly immediately following a safety audit, however, there
is no evidence to support the assumption that carrier crash performance
improves following a safety audit.
Based on the preliminary results of the NESAP evaluation it is
recommended that FMCSA redefine new entrant carriers as small carriers
with fewer than five power units with limited or no experience,
allowing FMCSA to focus resources on those carriers posing a higher
safety risk. FMCSA is tasked by Congress with overseeing a large
regulated population and with managing scarce government resources. The
Agency has developed considerable expertise with a wide range of safety
enhancing enforcement tools and programs, from comprehensive reviews to
civil penalties to warning letters to outreach and education. The
Agency has examined the effectiveness of many of these tools, and in
many cases the new entrant safety audits are less valuable than other
interventions.
Question 15. More than twenty years ago, Congress directed DOT to
develop and issue training requirements for entry-level commercial
vehicle operators. In MAP-21, Congress again directed DOT to issue a
final rule for training entry-level commercial vehicle operators by
September 2013. However, DOT withdrew their proposed rule last year.
When will DOT issue a final rule requiring minimum training standards
for entry-level commercial motor vehicle drivers?
Answer. While the entry-level driver training rulemaking is a
priority for FMCSA, the Agency cannot now precisely project the
completion date of a final rule as further explained below. The Agency
anticipates awarding a contract within the next month to engage the
services of a convener to assess the feasibility of conducting a
negotiated rulemaking under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA) (Pub.
L. No. 101-646, 5 U.S.C. secs. 581-590) to implement this important
MAP-21 provision. This follows a series of public listening sessions
that were held in 2013 and the June 2013 letter report provided by the
Agency's Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee. If the convener
suggests a negotiated rulemaking is feasible and FMCSA utilizes this
process, however, the Agency is still required to provide a notice
soliciting committee membership and create a charter under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act before the negotiations could begin (NRA, 5
U.S.C. sec. 584). While it is difficult to predict precisely how long
negotiations would take, past experiences suggest it is normally less
than a year. The consensus-based NPRM would then be published for
notice and comment.
Based on MAP-21, the Agency's current rulemaking must: (1) address
the knowledge and skills needed for safe operation of a CMV, (2)
address the specific training needs of those seeking hazardous
materials and passenger endorsements, (3) create a means of certifying
that an applicant for a CDL meets Federal requirements, and (4) require
training providers to demonstrate that their training meets uniform
Federal standards. The 2007 NPRM did not address endorsement-related
training or the entry-level training of new intrastate CDL applicants
that is now mandated by MAP-21; these additional statutory provisions
would be addressed in the current rulemaking.
After reviewing the MAP-21requirements, comments to the 2007 NPRM,
participants' statements during the Agency's public listening sessions
held in 2013, and the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee's June
2013 letter report, FMCSA determined that it would be inappropriate to
continue with the rulemaking initiated in 2007. The Agency concluded
that a new rulemaking would provide the most effective starting point
for implementing the MAP-21 requirements. A new rulemaking would
provide the Agency and all interested parties the opportunity to
develop a proposal that focuses on the MAP-21 mandate and makes the
best use of the wealth of information provided by stakeholders since
publication of the 2007 NPRM.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to
Hon. Anthony R. Foxx
Question 1. In 2000, the TREAD Act was enacted in response to the
Ford/Firestone rollover issue. That bill created the Early Warning
Reporting (EWR) System. At the time, after some expressed concern that
the industry would continue to seek to withhold critical information
from the public, I engaged in an October 10, 2000 Floor colloquy with
then-Energy and Commerce Chairman Billy Tauzin in which I obtained
Chairman Tauzin's affirmation that the bill was not intended to protect
information from disclosure that could be disclosed under the law.
Although the EWR proposed rule was consistent with the stated intent of
Congress, the final rule was not. The problem with the current rule can
be described as follows: If I make a complaint to NHTSA's consumer
database that includes details about a serious automobile safety
concern, that information is made publicly available. If I instead make
the identical complaint to an automaker, the automaker is allowed under
NHTSA's rules to classify the entire complaint as `confidential
business information,' counter to the clear intent of Congress. I also
raised this concern in 2010 hearings with then-Secretary LaHood and
then-NHTSA Administrator Strickland. Will you commit to rewriting this
regulation, consistent with the language I included in S. 2151, in
order to ensure that only the information that truly could be withheld
from public release under the Freedom of Information Act can be
withheld from disclosure under EWR reporting? If not, why not?
Answer. This is a complex issue. I committed to provide comments to
the Committee on S. 2151, a bill introduced by Senators Markey and
Blumenthal to make additional EWR information and certain fatality
information publicly available and to improve the public's access to
information on the agency's vehicle safety related databases. I will
provide my comments to the Committee under separate cover.
Question 2. S. 2151 also includes a provision directing automakers
to automatically submit the accident report or other document that
first alerted them to a fatality involving their vehicle or equipment
to NHTSA's Early Warning Reporting database. NHTSA is then required to
automatically make those documents public unless they are exempted from
public disclosure under the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA).
Presently, these documents are only provided to NHTSA if the agency
requests them, and they are not made public unless they are requested
under FOIA. On May 7, I released a document that consists of GM's
response to just such a request by NHTSA. This document--which did not
contain any proprietary information--shows that both GM and NHTSA knew
that the contractor the agency used to investigate a fatal Wisconsin
accident reported the accident was linked to the fact that the airbags
had not deployed. GM also sent NHTSA a February 2007 collision analysis
and reconstruction report done by the Wisconsin State Patrol Academy
that highlighted the ignition switch defect as preventing the airbags
from deploying. The report also references other reports of similar
problems that the Wisconsin investigators uncovered. Had this document
been made automatically available to NHTSA, the public and independent
safety experts, it could have provided an actual ``early warning'' and
potentially avoided other accidents, injuries and deaths. Does the
Department support the provision and subsequent publication in the EWR
database of documents such as the accident report or other document
that first alerted automakers to a fatality involving their vehicle or
equipment to NHTSA? If not, why not?
Answer. This is a complex issue. I committed to provide comments to
the Committee on S. 2151, a bill introduced by Senators Markey and
Blumenthal to make additional EWR information and certain fatality
information publicly available and to improve the public's access to
information on the agency's vehicle safety related databases. I will
provide my comments to the Committee under separate cover.
Question 3. Does the Department believe that NHTSA should be
required to consider information contained in the EWR database when it
is investigating potential safety defects and when it is evaluating
citizen petitions for automobile safety standards or enforcement
actions? If not, why not?
Answer. When investigating potential safety defects including
petitions, NHTSA relies on all the information it collects using the
authority delegated by Congress. This information includes, but is not
limited to, EWR reports as well as consumer complaint data, field
reports, manufacturer communications including technical service
bulletins, SCI crash reports, precedent in prior investigations and
peer vehicle data. Given that EWR reports are already integrated in
NHTSA standard defect evaluation and investigation process, the
Department does not see a need to statutorily require NHTSA to consider
EWR information.
Question 4. Tire Identification Numbers (TINs) are 12-symbol
alphanumeric codes required by NHTSA and are intended to assist
consumers, manufacturers, vendors and service providers when tires are
recalled. The agency created the TIN system in 1970 to function as a
tire identifier in the event of a recall. According to recent press
reports, there is no database that is searchable by TINs on NHTSA's
database and often no way for consumers, vendors or manufacturers to
quickly and easily access and read the TINs on tires themselves. This
has led to accidents, injuries and deaths as people drove in vehicles
with recalled tires that later failed. Would the Department undertake
a) the creation of a searchable TIN database that would allow people to
quickly search by TIN, as well as by make and model, on recalled tires
to determine whether particular tires were part of a recall b) a
rulemaking to require TINs to be easily accessible and machine-readable
so that consumers, vendors or service providers can quickly determine
their recall status and c) a rulemaking to require tire vendors to
register tire owner information so that providing notice in the event
of a tire recall is facilitated? If not, why not?
Answer. The Department is committed to exploring ways to improve
tire registrations and tire recall completion rates. NHTSA is currently
learning more about how dealers are implementing the tire registration
process. NHTSA also is conducting outreach to dealers to educate them
of their obligation to provide registration cards or electronically
register the tires at the point of sale. NHTSA intends to work with
industry to determine the best way to increase registration rates.
Based upon the result of these efforts, the Department will decide
whether a rulemaking effort is necessary.
Regarding recall completion rates, the Department believes that a
TIN lookup that furnishes recall applicability and a calculated tire
age could be beneficial to consumers. Such a database would improve
customer understanding of what tires are covered by recalls as well as
the age of the tire. A TIN, however, is different from a vehicle
identification number or VIN. While a VIN is a unique identifier for
every vehicle, a TIN only identifies a batch of tires made during a
specific week at a specific plant. The TIN is not a unique identifier,
but it could still be used to determine whether a tire is part of a
recalled batch as well as to determine the age of the tire.
However, we believe that tire manufacturers are best positioned to
compile and maintain the data online, similar to our requirement that
automakers and motorcycle manufacturers provide consumers with a free
online tool that will enable them to search recall information by VIN
starting this summer. Were NHTSA required to develop and maintain such
data, properly deploying such a database would require significant
information collection from the public, industry and stakeholders to
assess the best method and to avoid unintended consequences. In
addition, standing up and maintaining the related information
technology infrastructure and data processing procedures would require
significant resources. And before committing to a rulemaking mandating
the TIN to be easily accessible and machine readable, we would need to
consider the safety need, technical feasibility and anticipated costs
and benefits.
Question 5. What information does the Department, whether through
the Federal Railroad Administration or some other entity, collect
regarding toxic inhalation hazard (TIH) or other rail-security
sensitive substances that are carried by rail? This information could
include but not be limited to contents on specific trains, routes, and
times traveled.
Answer. While railroads are required to compile and analyze routing
information for certain hazardous materials, including TIH materials,
FRA and PHMSA may inspect this data but we do not compile or retain it.
Subpart 1 of 49 CFR Part 172 includes requirements regarding the
development of safety and security plans for certain hazardous
materials (see section 172.800(b)) such as TIH, explosives, or
radioactive materials, and additional analysis and routing requirements
for certain hazardous materials (see section 172.820(a)).
With regard to collection of this information we do not require
submittal of safety and security plans or information used in a routing
analysis. The regulations do require those subject to the requirements
maintain a copy of the information that is accessible at, or through,
its principal place of business. These materials must be made available
upon request, at a reasonable time and location, to an authorized
official of the Department of Transportation or the Department of
Homeland Security. (See sections 172.800(d) and 172.820(i) and (j)).
FRA reviews the railroad security plans and routing analyses, but FRA
does not collect this specific data.
Positive Train Control (PTC) implementation plans submitted to FRA
are risk-based, so the routes for PTC installation are prioritized
based on risk. FRA knows if a particular route is being PTC-equipped
because TIH is transported on the route, but FRA does not collect or
require other data related to hazardous materials for purposes of the
PTC implementation plan. See 49 U.S.C. 20157 and 49 C.F.R.
236.1011(a)(5)(i).
Question 6. Assuming the DOT collects some information regarding
TIH or other rail-security sensitive substances that are carried by
rail, what does the Department do with that information? For example,
does the DOT share that information with local officials and/or first
responders, and if so, when (i.e., in advance of a shipment, or after a
spill or other type of accident occurs)?
Answer. Again, FRA and PHMSA do require detailed reports regarding
certain rail accidents/incidents, and certain hazardous materials
releases. For FRA, the accident reports may contain information about
whether a TIH or other hazardous material was involved, but that is not
specifically required. The hazmat incident data collected by PHMSA
would indicate what hazardous material was involved in a release. While
railroads are required to compile and analyze routing information for
certain hazardous materials, including TIH materials, FRA and PHMSA may
inspect this data but we do not compile or retain it.
DOT notes that the Nation's railroads and hazardous materials
shippers partner on voluntary efforts to educate and aid emergency
responders. An example of this is the TRANSCAER program, a national
outreach effort that focuses on assisting communities to prepare for
and respond to a possible hazardous materials transportation incident.
TRANSCAER members consist of volunteer representatives from the
chemical manufacturing, transportation, distributor, and emergency
response industries, as well as the Federal Government.
Most railroads have claimed that information related to the
quantity of TIH transported over a certain route is proprietary/
confidential as it could disclose market share and put a railroad at a
competitive disadvantage.
Question 7. Section 10301 of SAFETEA-LU required standards to
address both complete and partial ejections from vehicles. However, the
rule did not address occupant ejections through sunroof and rear window
vehicle openings, which together have accounted for more than 12
percent of injuries and 7 percent of deaths from ejection. In the final
rule, NHTSA stated: ``We plan to examine field data to better
understand the current and future extent of roof ejections, and will
seek to learn about the future implementation of sun/moon roofs in
vehicles and ideas about effective ejection countermeasures through
those portals. The results of this work may find that future rulemaking
on roof ejections could be warranted.'' What has NHTSA done to examine
the field data and determine whether a new rulemaking is warranted?
Please provide me with a description of all efforts to date, along with
a timeline that describes future plans.
Answer. After completion of the final rule, NHTSA formed a working
group made up of members of Rulemaking, Enforcement, Research and the
National Center for Statistics and Analysis to complete this task. The
group started by analyzing real world crashes involving ejections
through roof portals included in our Fatality Analysis Reporting System
(FARS) and National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data
System (NASS-CDS) and met with manufacturers to better understand the
issue. The group then used this information to develop a research test
plan for further investigation. Testing is expected to be completed
before the end of calendar year 2014. The results of this testing will
be used to make a management decision in 2015 regarding how to proceed.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Cory Booker to
Hon. Anthony R. Foxx
Question 1. Mr. Secretary--as you may know, my predecessor in the
Senate, Frank Lautenberg, was a fierce advocate in the prevention of
drunk driving. I too, share his passion to keep our roads safe and
wanted to ask you a question in regards to drunk driving prevention
through the use of ignition interlocks.
These devices, which prevent a driver from starting his or her
vehicle if their blood alcohol level is elevated, has been a proven
lifesaver and the National Transportation Safety Board has advocated
for the expansion of their use.
Almost all states have some type of mandatory or discretionary
ignition interlock program, and 36 of them have laws mandating their
use after a first DUI conviction. Yet, of these 36, only two were
awarded Section 405(d) Federal grants specifically designed to
encourage states to adopt and enforce mandatory ignition interlock
laws. Mr. Secretary, are there ways that we can improve the utilization
of this grant program?
Answer. MAP-21 specifies that to qualify for a grant under section
405(d) a state must adopt and enforce a mandatory law that requires all
offenders convicted of DUI to be limited to driving only motor vehicles
equipped with ignition interlocks. The plain language of the statute
sets a very straightforward requirement that an interlock must be used.
Unfortunately, many States, including some with laws that are described
as mandatory, include exemptions or permissions in their laws that
allow offenders to avoid interlock use under some circumstances. Under
the plain language of the statute, these states do not qualify for a
grant.
Currently, the Department provides technical assistance to states
to help strengthen ignition interlock laws and meet the grant
requirements. For example, in the first year of the grant program 14
states applied for a grant and two states met the qualification
criteria. In the second grant year, 12 states applied for a grant and
four states qualified. The increase in awards from the first to the
second year resulted from two states amending their laws to remove
exemptions and establish mandatory programs.
The Department's Grow America Act also proposes changes to Section
405(d) that would expand eligibility for the ignition interlock grant
program by allowing states with employer or rural exemptions in their
interlock laws to be eligible if DUI offenders are still covered by a
24-7 monitoring program. A 24-7 program requires DUI offenders to
either check in with authorities periodically during each day and
complete breath alcohol tests or use a continuous electronic monitoring
device.
We believe that the combination of technical assistance to states
and refinements to the statute will enable more states to qualify for
Section 405(d) grant funds.
Question 2. Mr. Secretary, I am concerned that states that are
doing the right thing when it comes to drunk driver prevention are not
being recognized by the grant program and moreover, that the remaining
states who are considering stronger ignition interlock laws are
discouraged to do so through the failure of this program. I would like
to hear your thoughts on the best ways that I can work with you and
Acting NHTSA Administrator Friedman to improve the responsiveness of
the 405(d) grant program as well other provisions in MAP-21 to make
sure NHTSA is doing everything it can to ensure that the drivers on our
roads are sober drivers.
Answer. We believe that incentive grant programs such as the
Ignition Interlock Incentive Program should seek a balance between
rewarding states that have enacted effective laws and providing funds
for states to build effective programs. Refinements to the existing
Section 405(d) grant program have been proposed in the Department's
Grow America Act that would seek this balance by allowing additional
opportunities for states to qualify for incentive funds. These
refinements would allow states with employment and rural exemptions to
be eligible for a grant if offenders are still covered by a 24-7
monitoring program.
The current research shows that ignition interlocks are effective
when they are installed on vehicles. Consequently, the introduction of
exemptions in this grant program that would allow offenders to drive
without interlocks or any kind of monitoring should be carefully
considered. As a general matter, we feel these types of exemptions in
any form undermine safety.
Question 3. Another important safety issue that I would like to
discuss is in regards to the General Motors recall. It is deeply
concerning that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) failed to take action to identify the ignition switch problem
and require a recall over a ten year period, despite opening two
separate investigations of the failure of the vehicle's airbags to
deploy in crashes. What could be included in transportation
reauthorization proposal that could help the agency ensure that safety
defects are identified and prevented in the early stages?
Answer. The GROW AMERICA Act will strengthen NHTSA's ability to
hold automobile manufacturers accountable for defects that can cost
lives. Specifically, the Act:
Establishes harsher penalties for manufacturers that refuse
to address defective and dangerous vehicles and equipment that
endanger the public;
Provides the authority to require manufacturers to cease
retail sale and/or require repair of vehicles or equipment that
pose an imminent hazard to the safety of the motoring public;
and
Provides the authority to require rental car companies and
used car dealers to participate in recalls of defective and
unsafe vehicles.
To increase the effectiveness of NHTSA's safety defects
investigation, we also believe that the following steps are necessary:
enhance the Office of Defect's (ODI) ability to use the latest
technology to help identify possible safety defects; increase the
public's awareness of reporting safety problems with their vehicles or
vehicle equipment to NHTSA; and provide ODI with the personnel
resources to address potential safety risks.
Question 4. What changes in agency process and procedures could
prevent another safety defect from going undetected?
Answer. The Department continually seeks new ways to improve our
processes. We are currently conducting an internal due diligence review
of our processes. As part of that effort, we are reviewing the events
leading up to this recall to see if there are areas that can be
improved.
For example, we are looking to improve our understanding of the way
that various manufacturers design air bags to function when the vehicle
loses power, considering whether we need to improve the use of Special
Crash Investigation (SCI) in our defects screening process, reviewing
ways to better incorporate information about remote defect
possibilities into the investigative process, and evaluating our
process for engaging manufacturers around issue evaluations. As a
result of NHTSA's communication with automotive manufacturers and
suppliers regarding air bag design and performance related to the
position of the vehicle ignition switch, NHTSA has opened two formal
investigations related to potential safety defects related to the air
bag systems in certain Chrysler vehicles (MY 2006-2007 Jeep Commander
and MY 2005-2006 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles and 2008-2010 Grand
Caravan, Town and Country and Dodge Journey vehicles).
Additionally, we are working closely with the Department's Office
of the Inspector General audit assessing issues pertaining to NHTSA's
actions prior to the recent GM recalls.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Hon. Anthony R. Foxx
To address concerns with implementation of Positive Train Control
(PTC).
Question 1. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am pleased to
see that your draft legislation addresses the issue of PTC. The
Committee has heard testimony on several recent occasions about the
obstacles passenger and freight railroads are encountering in their
efforts to meet the 2015 deadline, most notably the issues with the FCC
approval process for communications towers which hasn't granted a
single permit since MAY 2013. Can you please outline the
administration's proposals for PTC and for addressing difficulties in
implementation?
Answer. The GROW AMERICA Act grants the Secretary of Transportation
new authority in four areas: (1) to grant merit-based extensions of the
current statutory implementation deadline for PTC systems; (2) to
establish a schedule with milestones for PTC system implementation; (3)
to permit provisional operation of a PTC system or component prior to
its full certification; and (4) to allow alternative methods of
protection in lieu of a PTC system where the alternative methods will
provide appropriate risk mitigation against PTC-preventable accidents.
The GROW AMERICA Act also reinforces the need for coordination between
DOT and the FCC to assess spectrum needs and determine a solution to
lack of spectrum availability.
Question 1a. Why have you not included a blanket extension of the
2015 PTC deadline since there isn't a single freight railroad and most
passenger lines are nowhere near being compliant due to events outside
their control?
Answer. Based on the technical challenges that Southern California
Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink), Union Pacific Railroad Company
(UP), and BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) have experienced, and the other
railroads' state of progress, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
believes it unlikely that any Class I freight railroad will be able to
fully complete PTC system development and approval by the December 31,
2015 deadline. Many will, however, be able to accomplish partial to
substantial deployment. FRA believes that BNSF will most likely be the
furthest along in the deployment process, with the other railroads
following behind them.
The unfortunate reality is that there are technical, financial, and
agency review and coordination issues affecting individual railroads'
abilities to complete PTC implementation by the December 31, 2015,
deadline. The extent to which these issues affect individual railroads
is not uniform. I cannot emphasize this enough. I do not believe that a
blanket extension is necessarily the most appropriate (or effective)
way to address the unique circumstances each railroad is facing. I
strongly recommend that extensions be considered on a merit basis and
only as necessary and that they take into consideration the specific
issues affecting the particular railroad as well as the ability of the
railroad to address the issues, the availability and effectiveness of
alternative solutions, and the safety risks, as provided in the GROW
AMERICA Act.
Question 1b. In addition, I understand there are very valid
concerns regarding interoperability under a scenario where there's
different compliance dates for different railroads. What analysis has
DOT done about how ad hoc compliance could impact overall operability
of various PTC solutions for both passenger and freight railroads?
Answer. Regardless of whether or not DOT is granted the authority
requested in the GROW AMERICA Act, the Department anticipates railroads
will be in varied states of compliance with the implementation mandate,
as previously indicated. This may be either as a consequence of the
difficulties individual railroads face in resolving the specific
technical and other issues associated with their individual PTC system
development and deployment efforts, or as a consequence of system
failures once a PTC system has been fully deployed and is operational.
Where a railroad fails to have an interoperable PTC system in
place, for whatever the reason, the implementing regulations are
designed to maintain a level of safety generally in accord with that
which could be expected with an operable PTC system, by requiring
supplementary procedures to heighten crew awareness and provide
operational controls limiting the frequency of unsafe events and
reducing the potential severity of any unsafe event. The implementing
regulations further allow for unique customization of these
supplementary procedures based on specific risk and risk mitigations.
To stress the importance of preserving 24/7 Sobriety programs as DOT
looks to restructure Section 405 incentive grants.
Question 2. Drunk driving is a serious concern, and one that is a
priority for me as we move forward with reauthorizing NHTSA. South
Dakota has taken recent, proactive steps to address the issue of drunk
driving. In 2011, South Dakota passed legislation to create our state's
24/7 Sobriety Program. In MAP-21, which I supported, I fought to
protect this program by ensuring it wasn't precluded as an eligible
safety program. As you propose to restructure Section 405 incentive
grants, what is the Administration's outlook on programs like the 24/7
Sobriety Program, and what steps have you taken to ensure that states
have the flexibility to rely on them?
Answer. NHTSA is aware of evaluations of intensive supervision
programs, such as the 24/7 Sobriety Program, which indicates that such
programs can be effective in reducing DWI recidivism. In the GROW
AMERICA Act, the Administration proposes to increase state flexibility
with regard to eligibility for an alcohol-ignition interlock law grant
by allowing the substitution of 24/7 intensive supervision programs for
ignition interlock use under certain circumstances. Under the proposal,
a state would be eligible for an ignition interlock grant even if its
all-offender interlock law contained an exemption for employer-owned
vehicles, provided that the state required such offenders to
participate in a 24/7 intensive supervision program. Similarly, a state
would also be eligible for an ignition interlock grant even if its all-
offender interlock law contained an exemption for rural residents,
provided that such offenders live more than one hundred miles from an
interlock service provider and they participate in a 24/7 intensive
supervision program.
To address South Dakota concerns that more flexible 402 funds will be
less available.
Question 3. NHTSA provides State and Community Highway Safety
grants under Section 402 in addition to the National Priority Safety
Program grants under Section 405, which are more restrictive. The
Administration's proposal contemplates funding for Section 405 at
higher levels than Section 402. Yet, Section 402 allows states more
flexibility to provide for data-driven projects in support of a number
of highway safety issues, and some states would prefer to see the
funding levels reversed, with 402 receiving as much funding as
possible. Can you explain the Administration's rationale for the
proposed funding levels as set forward in your proposal?
Answer. In MAP-21, Congress continued the approach from previous
highway safety authorizations by extending the Section 402 State and
Community Grant Program and providing grants to address specific
highway safety problems with the Section 405 National Priority Safety
Program Grant Program. In the GROW AMERICA Act, the Administration
proposes increases in both Section 402 and Section 405 funding. The
Administration proposes approximately 14 percent growth of the Section
402 program and 16 percent growth in the Section 405 program over the
life of the bill.
Section 405 funding provides grants to states that meet specific
grant criteria to combat highway safety issues that are significant
concerns in virtually every State, such as occupant protection,
impaired driving, novice driver safety, distracted driving, motorcycle
safety, as well as State traffic safety information systems that form
the basis for State highway safety problem identification and resource
allocation. Section 405 provides grants to states to address all these
safety problems while also providing incentives to states to refine and
improve these programs, by raising the bar for qualification over the
life of the authorization period. In addition to continuing and
revising the existing MAP21 grant programs, the GROW AMERICA Act
provides funding for states to address additional safety concerns: the
growing number of pedestrian and bicycle crashes, and novice driver
safety through the adoption of national driver education standards and
programs developed by the driver education community.
Section 402 grants provide funding with flexibility for states to
address more State-specific safety problems, identified using data
generated from the State traffic safety information systems supported
at least in part by Section 405 grants. Much of the Section 402 funding
is used by states to address the widespread problems of impaired
driving, occupant protection and distracted driving. The existence of
Section 405 grants in these areas allows states the option to devote a
smaller percentage of their Section 402 funds to these issues and free
up those Section 402 funds for use on other State-specific safety
problems.
The proposed funding increases in the GROW AMERICA Act are designed
to advance the synergy between the National Priority Program grants and
the State and Community Highway Safety grants by providing comparable
increases in funding to both programs.
To express concern about reports of invasive roadside survey procedures
employed by NHTSA contractors.
Question 4. I am concerned about reports regarding the National
Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drugged Driving that revealed motorists
complaints of being forced off the road and asked to provide breath,
blood and saliva samples. While combating impaired driving is a
priority, and while survey data provide important insights to
policymakers regarding the scope of this problem, it is important that
the methods employed by NHTSA and its contractors respect the civil
liberties of our Nation's motorists.
Survey participation should be voluntary and not feel coerced as
some have claimed.
Can you explain how the survey was conducted and what procedures,
if any, NHTSA employs to ensure that its testing activities--both those
conducted by the agency itself and those conducted through third-party
contractors -are constitutional and as unobtrusive as possible?
Answer. The National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by
Drivers is one of the most reliable sources of data on the presence of
alcohol and legal and illegal drugs among drivers on the road.
Information gathered through the Roadside Survey is a critical part of
our efforts to reduce impaired driving. For example, information from
previous surveys contributed to the passage of the 21 Drinking Age law.
Also, data from previous surveys helped law enforcement target times
for impaired driving enforcement.
Procedures for conducting the Roadside Survey were reviewed and
approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the Protection of
Human Subjects, as required by Federal statute. This IRB approval
process is designed to ensure that subjects of federally-funded
research are treated with dignity, respect, and courtesy, that their
participation is voluntary, that there is no coercion, and that
volunteers give informed consent to participate.
The following protocols were in place to ensure that the survey was
conducted in accordance with law and as unobtrusively as possible:
The research team placed large signs, including mobile
electronic signboards, in the roadway in advance of the survey
site to alert drivers to the ``Paid Voluntary Survey'' ahead.
Drivers passing by survey locations were randomly selected
and asked if they would like to volunteer to participate in the
survey.
Law enforcement officers were present at each survey site
for the safety of the motorists and researchers. However,
officers remained outside of the data collection area and were
not involved in collecting data from the drivers.
Researchers began by informing drivers that they have done
nothing wrong and that they are free to leave at any time.
Researchers also gave each driver an information sheet
describing the study, stating clearly that the survey is
voluntary, and explaining that no personally identifying
information will be collected.
If researchers encountered a driver who appeared to be
intoxicated, for the protection of the driver and other
motorists researchers offered a series of options (e.g.,
substituting a sober passenger as a driver in the vehicle;
having a researcher drive the vehicle home or to a hotel;
hiring a cab). (No driver has ever been arrested at a survey
site under this program.)
NHTSA is committed to its mission of reducing traffic deaths and
works closely with State partners to develop and implement effective
traffic safety programs. The agency also fully recognizes the
sensitivity of research activities of this nature and takes great care
to ensure that anonymity is preserved and individual rights are not
compromised.
Question 5. To request an update on when the Administration expects
to formally send up senior nominations including Deputy Secretary, FHWA
and NHTSA.
I sent a letter to the President in March 2014 urging him to act
swiftly to fill the vacant Administrator position at NHTSA. In that
letter, I explained my view that though the Acting Administrator and
career staff carry on the work of the agency during periods where there
is not a confirmed Administrator, as is the current situation, a
sustained absence of leadership can send a mixed message, particularly
when it comes to the important safety mission entrusted to NHTSA. The
recent recalls of General Motors' vehicles have once again put a
spotlight on the Office of Defect Investigation's process for
identifying and addressing safety defects. It is important to ensure
that there is a Senate confirmed Administrator in place to provide
necessary leadership in this and other areas. Can you provide an update
to this Committee on what progress has been made with respect to
identifying and nominating a candidate to fill this position?
Answer. I share your interest in the importance of having a
confirmed Administrator at NHTSA and understand the White House Office
of Presidential Personnel is working on finding the appropriate
candidate for this vacancy. In the interim, I have full confidence that
NHTSA's safety mission continues to be the top priority for the
agency's current leadership and staff. My Department looks forward to
providing the Committee with more information on this nomination in the
near future.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Kelly Ayotte to
Hon. Anthony R. Foxx
Question. Over the last several years we've seen fatalities of
pedestrians and bicyclists increase, even as overall traffic fatalities
are falling. These modes account for over 5,000 deaths and 115,000
serious injuries a year.
As you know, I have written to your department in the past
requesting a separate performance measure for non-motorized
transportation users. In fact, I have introduced legislation that would
ensure states measure fatalities of both motorized and non-motorized
users, so they may identify safety hazards on their roads.
In March, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) released a
draft rule of the safety performance measure. Why did this measure not
include a separate non-motorized performance measure that would improve
data collection and encourage states to focus on reducing these
fatalities?
Answer. Pedestrian and bicycle safety is one of my top priorities.
All modes in DOT strongly support this priority and will continue to
work collaboratively to do so. More information about DOT's bicycle and
pedestrian work in this area is available at: http://www.dot.gov/
bicycles-pedestrians.
In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for Safety Performance
Measures (available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-03-11/pdf/
2014-05152.pdf), as required by MAP-21, we are proposing the
establishment of one measure for each of the four areas mandated by
MAP-21: number of fatalities, fatality rate, number of serious
injuries, and serious injury rate. Our proposed measure is consistent
with the focus of the Highway Safety Improvement Program, which is to
reduce all fatalities and serious injuries--including those involving
pedestrians and bicyclists.
States are already using and reporting a pedestrian fatality metric
through NHTSA's Highway Safety Program. Just this spring, NHTSA reached
a further agreement with the Governors Highway Safety Association
(GHSA) to add the requirement for states to develop a bicycle safety
performance target. These will begin with FY 2015 highway safety
grants. You can be assured that both NHTSA and FHWA are working
cooperatively on safety performance measures to spur states to achieve
the national goal of reducing fatalities and serious injuries for all
users.
The Department supports a data-driven approach to addressing safety
issues. As states update their Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP)--
the statewide-coordinated safety plan that provides a comprehensive
framework for reducing all fatalities and serious injuries on all
public roads--they bring pedestrian and bicyclist interests to the
table and look at crash trends. An SHSP identifies a State's key safety
needs and guides investment decisions toward strategies and
countermeasures with the most potential to save lives and prevent
injuries. The majority of states already include pedestrian and
bicyclist safety in their SHSPs either as a priority emphasis area or a
strategy.
As FHWA moves through the rulemaking process, FHWA will continue to
consider all comments received. The Safety Performance Measures NPRM
specifically asks for comment on how the Department could address non-
motorized safety performance and how State and MPOs consider such data
in their safety programs and in selecting investments.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to
Hon. Anthony R. Foxx
Question 1. The rail industry has not been able to install antennas
that will be needed to make Positive Train Control work for over a year
while the FCC tries to develop a workable process to handle the 22,000
applications they expect. What are you doing to help move this process
forward?
Answer. FRA has worked closely with the FCC and other stakeholders
throughout the development of the Program Comment that will apply to
most of the antennas within the railroad right-of-way necessary for PTC
implementation and was adopted by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation in May 2014. FRA's primary role is as a technical resource
for the FCC to enable it to better understand the potential
ramifications of various policy and technical options that it is
considering to facilitate the PTC tower application-review process. The
FCC is responsible for compliance with the National Historic
Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act as they
relate to its approval of communication system towers and stations. FRA
has no statutory or regulatory authority over spectrum allocation and
availability or communication systems tower deployment. FRA has
provided, and will continue to provide, the FCC with all possible
technical assistance as the FCC implements the Program Comment and
approves the antennas necessary for PTC system implementation.
Question 2. The new truck driver hours of service rules your
department put in place in July 2013 are having a substantial impact on
productivity. To justify the change your department speculated that
hours of service would make drivers healthier and live longer. Also,
your department recently completed a congressionally mandated study on
the rules' restart provision that acknowledged that your rule changes
have put more trucks on the road during daytime hours.
What plans does your Department have to measure and try to confirm
whether these speculative health benefits will actually be realized?
Also, what plans does your Department have to evaluate the daytime
driving safety impacts of putting so many trucks on the road at the
same time?
Answer. The Hours-of-Service rule has been in place almost a full
year; a year in which the industry has seen higher profitability than
any year since 2009. Only those drivers who were working more than 70
hours per week are affected by having their work limited to an average
of 70 hours per week, which is still nearly double the national
standard of a 40-hour work week. The benefits of the rule are not
speculative. They are supported by the best available science on the
relationship between increased sleep (for sleep-deprived groups, like
truck drivers) and increased life expectancy. FMCSA is considering a
range of research projects to evaluate the effect of the 2011 final
rule, including the two-night requirement that some argue puts an
excessive number of trucks on the road early in the morning. The Agency
will announce its research plans in due course and seek industry input
and cooperation in refining them and carrying out the studies.
This rule also does not prevent carriers and drivers from setting
their own schedules, nor does it restrict drivers from being on the
roads during any time of the day. Only drivers who run out of time
during the work week and exceed 60 hours of work in 7 days or 70 hours
in 8 days, and need to begin a new work week as soon as possible would
have to use the 34-hour restart, including two nighttime periods from
1-5 a.m. Even then, there is no requirement that such a driver hit the
road at a specific hour. Less than 15 percent of long haul truck-
drivers are affected by the 34-hour restart.
In our regulatory analysis, the Agency estimated that the changes
to the hours of service rule would yield not only safety benefits in
lives saved, quantified at 19 lives saved per year, as well as benefits
to driver health, including $280 million in savings from fewer crashes
and $470 million in savings from improved driver health.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roy Blunt to
Hon. Anthony R. Foxx
Questions on Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Question 1. There are considerable Bakken crude testing and survey
efforts under way by oil producers and shippers. 17 companies submitted
over 1,100 test results to their trade association-representatives of
which I know plan to walk PHMSA through the results when they are
ready.
The North Dakota Petroleum Council also plans to collect 150 total
samples from both well sites and rail facilities. These efforts will
provide a substantial amount of data to PHMSA on the characteristics
and behavior of Bakken crude.
How will this data be utilized by PHMSA, and do you expect it to
settle questions surrounding Bakken crude and how it compares to other
crude types?
Answer. Safety is my number one priority as Secretary of
Transportation. We appreciate the efforts of the industry to collect
and analyze crude oil data following our request to share this
information. As we've said, more needs to be understood about this
crude oil, and our safety experts are reviewing the data as we also
continue to collect and analyze our own data. This testing data is
critical to our comprehensive approach.
As part of its on-going efforts, PHMSA has supported the American
Petroleum Institute Standards Committee initiative to develop industry
standards for proper sampling techniques, testing criteria, and testing
frequency for crude oil. PHMSA has actively participated in the
discussions during working groups sessions held to date and plans to
continue up through expected completion in July. PHMSA uses the data
collected on crude oil characteristics in conjunction with physical
testing of tank car integrity and predictive modeling tools to gather
data on tank car performance in accident scenarios to develop its
proposals.
The data submitted to date and any submitted in the future will be
analyzed and compared to PHMSA's sampling and testing results. PHMSA is
also actively involved in an American Petroleum Institute working group
tasked with developing industry best practices, including those
regarding testing and sampling methods for crude oil.
Question 2. Will it inform the rulemaking process your department
already has underway?
Answer. Yes. Based on PHMSA's own testing and sampling efforts,
combined with the voluntarily submitted testing data by industry, PHMSA
better understands the unique properties of crude oil. This
understanding has led to the development of a comprehensive rulemaking.
PHMSA has used the data collected on crude oil characteristics in
conjunction with physical testing of tank car integrity and predictive
modeling tools to gather data on tank car performance in accident
scenario to develop its proposals. PHMSA is confident the proposals in
our rulemaking will account for the unique characteristics of crude oil
and improve safety and looks forward to public comment on these
proposals and the data that supported their development.
Question 3. Mr. Secretary, last week you announced you sent a
``comprehensive package'' of rules to OMB intended to address rail
safety. I understand you are unable to comment on the specific details,
but I assume there will be some treatment of rail car design and how to
address cars currently in service. I have been informed that a part of
the technical analysis your department is considering for rail car
design standards is a study by the University of Illinois. But I also
understand that study is currently undergoing peer review. How will the
results of that peer review be incorporated into the proposed
regulatory actions the Department is considering?
Answer. The rulemaking that is currently pending focuses on a
variety of topics from tank car design to possibly classification
issues.