Members about the president s plan to privatize the nations Traffic Control system and reductions to Capital Investment and surface transportation projects. This is two hours. The subcommittee will come to order. Before i begin, i just i know that all of our minds are a little bit in many ways elsewhere because of the incidents yesterday at the baseball practice field, and i just wanted to once again mention how all of us are praying for, obviously, the whip, mr. Steve scalise, the two Brave Police Officers that were injured, along with a member of the staff and a former member of the staff who were injured. So just we cannot forget them and we wish their full recoveries. With that this morning we welcome secretary chow to testify on the fiscal year 2018 budget for the department of transportation. I dont have to tell any of you that secretary chow comes to this position with thank lone o most impressive records of Public Service that anyone will see, having served as chairman of the maritime commission, director of the peace core and secretary to the department of labor, you know, not to mention a number of leadership positions in the private sector and nonfor profit sectors. Secretary, you have led large and complex organizations and i will tell you that all of us agree we are fortunate to have someone of your expertise, of your experience, of your knowledge as dot heading dot as we are facing some challenges, of course. We always face challenges, but nobody is more prepared than you. So were grateful that you have agreed to once again again come back to Public Service as you always have. Thank you for your service to our nation. I look forward to working with you to maintain and improve the safety of our Transportation System. All the while insures our Infrastructure Investments lead to Economic Growth and really to improve the daytoday lives of the american people, which is really what were talking about. The budget request for the department of transportation is 16. 3 billion in Discretionary Budget Authority and a total of 75 billion in total resources, including obligation limitations for Service Transportation and aviation programs. Now, safety is this committees top priority for dot. Im pleased that the budget request places priority on safety programs, madam secretary, funding several programs with the fast act and continuing many of the safety priorities in the previous 17 bill. So i think thats frankly very good news. In addition to focussing on safety of our transportation network, we obviously must ensure that we grow our economy. And yes through fiscally responsible transportation investments. And in doing so, we must make sure that we dont leave Rural America and economically distressed areas behind as we make the tough decisions that face us for the 2018 and beyond, 2018 budget and beyond. I just want you to know that i want to work with you. We want to work with you to make sure that we continue, for example, air service to small towns and remote communities, and i want to make sure that we address Passenger Railroads for our rural communities. I also want to take a careful look at transit. We can. We must make obviously tough choices in federal spending. We all have to do that. We have to be willing to do that. I have some concerns about the proposal to terminate the departments work with local governments on several projects, but i work forward to working with you and through all of those very difficult issues. I look forward to a spirited discussion about the administrations proposal to transfer air Traffic Control operation from facilities to a corporate, nongovernmental entity. Were dealing with a monopoly, whether its the monopoly controlled by the government or a monopoly controlled by someone else, it will still be a monopoly. I have not been shy about saying it should be accountable to the public. I dont see any other way to achieve this than to continue our congressional oversight role. I belief that preserving the publics voice is the only way to control our air space as a National Asset and protect access to all users, commercial aviation, general aviation, and this is key, new entrants such as drones and in many cases we dont know what they are, but it is starting to happen now. So we must to the maximum extent possible protect the right of the traveling of the traveling public as well. Its not a secret. Our air space is the most complex in the world, with an unmatched safety word. We can Work Together to build on that Safety Record and i look forward to it and open the air space to more and more users. Lets make sure were not limiting it. But we open it to more and more users. Some of which are beyond our current imagination, but that are starting to happen right now. I look forward to discussing this issue with you today and for not only today but continuing those conversations in the weeks and the months ahead. Secretary, i appreciate your attention. And the attention that the president has given to infrastructure last week, improving our nations infrastructure is an area where we can find Common Ground and make real improvements to the daily lives of the american people, not only in their ability to get around, but also, frankly, to help our economy. So i really, really look forward to working with you and my colleagues of the subcommittee to make Smart Investments to go after waste, cut red tape and protect the taxpayers. Again, first thank you for your service to the nation. Thank you for appearing before us today and with that, i would like to yield now to my Ranking Member, mr. Price. You are recognized, sir. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Welcome, madam secretary. Were glad to have you here this morning. I want to associate myself with the chairmans remarks about yesterdays tragedy and the concern we all have for our colleagues, steve scalise, of course, and in particular i want to acknowledge david bailey, one of the Police Officers who was injured and were very proud of him. Hes a North Carolina Central University graduate, and we have followed his progress over the years. We really have come together as we must come together, as an institution and as a country, i believe, in face of this and i hope some good will come of it. But in the meantime, we are dealing with real personal difficulties, tragedies that command our attention and our and our good wishes. Were here this morning to examine the 2018 budget request for the department of transportation. This system that were funding, facilitates the flow of commerce and impacts every american. We know that investing in transportation infrastructure keeps us safe. It improves our economy and creates jobs. Unfortunately we also know that were not were not doing so well, according to objective observers, such as the American Society of Civil Engineers whose 2017 report card gives americas infrastructure a grade of only d plus. The report concludes that we need to invest nearly 4. 5 trillion just to keep hur infrastructure from poor to good condition. We heard about the need to reduce red tape and encourage private investment in transportation projects. These are laudable goals. But they wont deliver the results we need without a core of robust federal funding. To maintain and modernize and improve our nations Transportation System. We must take bold steps to reduce backlog, move infrastructure back towards a state of good repair and make investments in new technologies to make transportation safer and more efficient. The challenge before us is clear, and it will only get worse without action on the part of congress and this administration. I have to say, i think this Budget Proposal falls short of that mark. The result largely adheres to the funding levels agreed upon in the fast act for programs that rely on trust fund dollars. But overall Budget Authority could be cut by 3. 1 billion or 16 . The brunt of these reductions falls upon discretionary accounts designed to advance public transit, rail and other multimodal projects critical to our nations Transportation Future. For example, the highly competitive Capital Investment grants program would be discontinued for all projects that currently lack full funded ground agreements, despite the fact that funding for this program was increased just two months ago in the bipartisan package. Ending the program would up end badly needed transit projects across the country, including two in my home district in North Carolina. In most cases existing funding commitments from state and local governments would no longer be enough to move forward with construction, dooming many projects to failure. We should be encouraging more state and local investment in transit, eliminating the federal matching dollars. Well have exactly the opposite effect. Equally concerning is the proposal of zero out tiger funding. Here, too, i could point to successful projects in my district and in my state that leveraged funds from other sources. This is a very successful Grant Program. Supports innovative projects, multijurisdictional projects of regional and national significance. They are difficult to fund through traditional federal programs. Tiger grants are awarded on a competitive basis and every member here knows how competitive that process is, how far the demand for funding exceeds the current supply. Congress providing 500 million for another round of tiger grants in the omnibus package. Its zeroed out in this budget. Passenger rail also fairs poorly. The Department Seeks to end amtraks National Routes by slashing investment in the National Network of amtrak by more than 50 . The request also proposes a 28 for the heavily traveled northeast corridor. Meanwhile, amtrak is breaking ridership records and more americans are looking to rail to meet their travel needs, support for the robust rail system has been reaffirmed by members of both parties, including the most recent longterm transportation reauthorization bill. And again, we have strong validation from North Carolina where traveling from charlotte to raleigh or the other way has become a model of pleasant transportation. Madam secretary, you stated on several occasions that safety must remain a top priority. Yet, it will cut funding in the operations and research account of the nitsa, the safety and operations account of the federal Railroad Administration, the Pipeline Safety account and aviation safety activities within the fa as operations accounts. Im puzzled by these cuts. I hope they dont represent a lack of commitment to key safety functions. We need to know how the Department Plans to maintain safety with fewer resources at its disposal. Quickly, briefly, i want to shift gears and address air Traffic Control. The administration has endorsed the outlines of chairman shoousers privatation proposals. I have grave concerns about this. I have said that repeatedly. This would sever air traffic components. The government sponsored Corporation Model envisioned by chairman shuser and President Trump will reduce trarns pansy and oversight. It would also represent an unprecedented giveaway of taxpayer assets to an untested private entity and it would threaten the progress were making, threaten the ongoing efforts to modernize efforts under next gen. That has delivered billions in savings to airlines and customers. So it assumes a quick transition to a private atc entity and also defers Capital Investments in fa as air Traffic Control inf infrastructure for the upcoming year. Of course, the other major transportation put forward by the administration is a much discussed infrastructure initiative. And this is something that has potential i believe for bipartisan support. But we dont have enough to work with. It is a sixpage document. Rather vague. Mentioning 200 billion in federal out lays that supposedly would leverage 800 billion in private and nonfederal investment. Of course we need more details about this to even begin to assess it. Before i close, we need to acknowledge that we still have no budget resolution, no top line spending number, no subcommittee allocations. There is talk of rushing to assemble a republican only omnibus package. I think thats a recipe for failure. Even if we reject the administration draconian cuts to nondefense discretionary funding, the appreciations process is at risk of completely breaking down if were forced to write our bills to these levels. We have seen this happen in past year when we lacked bipartisan budget agreements. The bipartisan budget agreements are required, given the requirements of the budget control act. If were going to have workable allocations so that we can cooperatively write transportation hudd and other appropriations bills. I know we want to work in this cooperative fashion, but we also know whats going to happen to enable us to do this. I look forward to your testimony today, working with you to ensure Vital Transportation funding are adequately funded. So thank you. Thank you, mr. Price. I am honored to welcome one of the busiest leaders in this entire process. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Its a pleasure to welcome back secretary chow to another stint. We look forward to your testimony. Let me add on to what dr. Price and many of us were shocked to the core yesterday. Obviously we pray for the quick recovery of those that are badly wounded and may i say and we have raised the profile of the Important Role of our Capital Police, but may i say a lot of what you do, secretary, is you have within your purview or just outside your purview the men and women who protect our harbors, our tunnels, our airports, our tran stations. Sometimes we pass by them and we acknowledge them, but sometimes dont expect that at some point they might have to put their lives on the line. Id just like to take this opportunity to recognize their role and raise their profile. Todays hearing is an important part of our oversight duties of the committee. After all, the power of the purse resides here on capitol hill. As secretary of transportation, you are responsible for maintaining and improving our nations infrastructure and protecting it as we pursue policies and programs to grow our economy, so too we must grow our infrastructure to support it. In that context, id like to bring up a critical project for our national economy. The gateway project and the hudson tunnel project. As you may know the northeast corridor regional economy even compassing over 50 Million People between the District Of Columbia and boston produces over 3 trillion in output equal to 20 of our Gross National product. Safely reliable Passenger Rail service is essential to that economic opportunity, whether it be the east coast, west coast or somewhere in between. For building the hudson tunnel is a vital importance to our region and certainly to my home state of new jersey. Given the clear benefits to this projects and disastrous consequences of inaction, i am concerned about the budget provision limiting funding for Capital Investment grants, what we commonly refer to on the committee as new starts. Im eager to hear either in this setting or outside this room how the Department Plans to support this vital infrastructure proposal for the new York New Jersey region. I have also taken note of the administrations proposal to spend 200 billion of targeted federal investments to private sector resources so that the ends result in at least a 1 trillion in total infrastructure spending. Id like to hear more about the specifics of this proposal and how it will improve our imfra structure planning for state and local governments, but above all, we welcome you, madam secretary and frank you, mr. Chairman for the time. Thank you, mr. Chairman and madam secretary. Obviously, your written testimony will be submitted in the record. You are recognized for five minutes now. Thank you so much. Discuss the president s 2018 budget request for transportation. My colleagues and i share your thoughts and prayers for those injured in yesterdays incidences and we are so grateful that the Capital Police were there. On transportation, we all share the same goal, to ensure that our countrys Transportation Systems are safe, dependable and ready to adapt to transformation on new technologies. The president s 2018 budget represents a bold vision for our transportation infrastructure. The administration has carefully studied our current spending patterns and taken a closer look at programs that may not be meeting their intended purposes, have outlasted their usefulness or could be replaced with new initiatives that will better address future transportation needs. The president is requesting 76 billion for transportation. This request fully funds surface transportation programs, including the fast act and provides steady state funding for the majority of other transportation programs. The budget provides new policy, direction in several key areas. First, our transportation infrastructure is crumbling and in urgent need of attention. To address this concern, the president has proposed longterm reforms to change the way Infrastructure Projects are regulated, funded, delivered and mainta maintained. The president s plan will create inkrintives for additional state, local and private funding and ensure private funding is maximized. The president has identified a total federal commitment of 200 billion for Infrastructure Improvements, of which a portion would be directed towards Rural America. Next the president s fiscal year 2018 budget also includes a proposal that represents a major shift for the faa. Despite spending billions of taxpayers dollars over decades of effort, the government has not been able to fully implement stateoftheart air Traffic Control technology. Air Traffic Controllers still use paper strips to keep track of flights and pilots are guided using 1960s technologies radar, for example. Congestion and delays cost more than 25 billion annually and lost productive, not to mention our quality of life. By 2020, air passenger traffic will will soar to one million. Drones will have to be integrated into the national air space. Without change the current air Traffic Control system will be unable to keep up. So this administration has pro posed moving air Traffic Control operations to a nonprofit, nongovernmental independent cooperative. The safety Regulatory Oversight functions will remain at faa, and this would also involve and solve a longstanding conflict of interest issue with the operating entity air Traffic Control regulating its own safety. More than 50 Countries Worldwide currently have this structure of separating out air Traffic Control and air safety regulations. Finally, the president calls for reforming some of our other transportation programs like ft as Capital Investment grants program, the discretionary air service and amtraks longdistance routes. The president also recommends that we revisit the tiger Grant Programs, the infrastructure principals outlined by the president will highlight alternative ways to fund worthy projects using a different funding formula moving forward. It also will recognize that the administrations commitment to Rural America as we revitalize our transportation infrastructure. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the president s budget. Im actually 20 seconds ahead of time. I will be more than glad to answer your questions. Thank you, madam secretary. We try to keep on time here, so we will proceed with the five minute rounds, alternates sides. I want to thank the members of the subcommittee. Were pretty strict in trying to keep to the time line and of course i get a lot of help from the subcommittee chairman in doing so. With that, madam secretary, as i mention in my opening remarks, i have drawn a very bright line to really my opposition to transferring air Traffic Control system to a what in essence is a corporate monopoly. Im obviously wide open to finding ways to improve the way faa makes investments and i welcome your suggests as to i could do my job or our job better. Were always subject to doing a better job. The problem, though, is that im concerned that the proposal would reduce or eliminate frankly the publics voice. While im open, and i have for decades been open to privatization in competition, this isnt privatization. Its a monopoly that will remain a monopoly, except that all the asset wills be transferred over to this other group. And i think it potentially could, frankly, create great risk if we were to hand decisions over to unaccountable corporate board. And, so, thats the only level of accountability im hearing in this bill through this board of directors. But i just dont see how a board of directors made up of good people but from Different Industries are going to do anything other than support the issues of their industries, of their special interests. So, yes, i agree our Current System like Everything Else is imperfect, but it does give a guaranteed voice to the Public Interest and thats one of the issues that i want to continue to talk with you about. In addition to basic accountability to the public, i also want to make sure we preserve our nations air space as a place of innovation. I know thats something you are committed to as well. We are seeing an explosion of new entrance into this space, drones, commercial space operators, new general aviation technologies and in this next generation, we will be moving people and goods through the air in ways that are beyond what we see today. And, so, thats why again handing that decision to a board controlled by special interests, they will be good men and women, to me would be like handing the streets over to the taxicab commissions right at the time when uber and lyft were entering into the marketplace. But i want to see here. When new airlines routes are planned higher levels of noise over neighborhoods. And we hear that in the Sub Committee all the time. Right now the public can go to congress if the faa is unresponsive. But the corporation would have no such obligation when they create new routes, when they change the frequency of those routes. So this goes to the health, the home values, the basic quality of life. So how do we address this issue with a board that has no direct public accountability. None whatsoever. So again i have other concerns and well talk about that those at a future time, madam secretary. I just wanted to again start that conversation and were going to have many more, but to just throw some of the issues that are concerning to me. So i would like to ask a couple questions. I dont have a lot of time. But would the traveling public have any say on new fees charged by this new entity . I dont know i know its in the early stages, so i dont know if its even fair to throw these things at you right now, but, you know, any idea about, for example that . Would the public have any say, any input as to any new fees that would be charged . The public would have the same recourse to appeal and to appeal to their congressmen and to their senators on fees like they do now. That start will still be the same. What we are seeing now is a very congested air space. Our air space is the safest in the world. But delays and congestion plague the air. And with increased traffic, with new entrants like droned and Unmanned Aircraft having to be integrated into the national air space, we need to upgrade the technology to ensure the new entrants and that there is a system that could respond to all this new traffic and congestion and delays . And this is not a new idea. It has been proposed decades ago by the clinton administration. What were trying to do is to bring the faa, bring the air Traffic Control system to be able to have the latest technology with which to manage the air space. So for noise, for example, noise would still remain at the faa. So what we are doing is actually addressing one of the major issues, which has been longstanding, a conflict of interest of the air Traffic Control system regulating its own safety. We are separating that out. There will be a safety component, which stays with faa, the air traffic component will be independent and separate. And on noise that still stays with faa. So citizens will the new air Traffic Control system has to respond to the same regulations, noise regulations and if people are unsatisfied, they would have the same recourse. They could go to their congressmen and senators as well. I try to keep myself on time as well. But we will continue this conversation. Mr. Price . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Madam secretary, i want to first ask for your assurance on a matter that includes the entire appropriations process. And it has to do with the reports that the white house has ordered agencies to ignore democratic oversight requests. The administration seems to be saying that democratic oversight has no legitimacy, that oversight is the prerogative of the majority party. Thats a new level of partisan ship thats unprecedented. It is unacceptable. Will only worsen gridlock in washington. So i want to just ask for your assurance on this. What is your policy . What is the policy at your department with response to i would be more than happy to answer that. Let me ask you a couple related questions. What is your policy in your department . Is there any policy or guidance that you know of that would prohibit or delay responses to Ranking Members of congressional committees or subcommittees . Is there any policy or guidance that would prohibit or delay responses to democratic members of congress . And if such policies are in place to prohibit it or delay responses to other democratic members, was that developed in consultation with the white house or the omb . There are a lot of questions, so let me say first of all it has always been my policy to work on a bipartisan basis with members of congress. Having said that, i think it is worthwhile clarifying that in the past administrations as well, the executive branches longstanding policy has always been to work with the majority. And that and ill quote from a doj opinion. The executive branchs longstanding policy has been to engage in the established process for accommodating congressional requests for information only when those requests come from a committee, Sub Committee or chairman authorized to conduct oversight. This opinion also says with regard to responding to requests from individual members who are not Committee Chairs, the executive branch has historically, historically exercised its discretion in determining whether and how to respond following a general policy providing only documents and information that are already public or would be available to the public through the freedom of information act. So in terms of requests from members who are not Committee Chairs regardless of party, the doj opinion makes clear in its final paragraph that the response depends on the circumstances. So im reading, obviously, from the recent opinion thats been made public. It probably puts into writing what has always been the established precedent. Im not here to anger anybody and i will say that from my point of view to the extent that i can, it is my intend to work fully on a bipartisan basis with both sides of the aisle. Well, that statement of intent that you just appended to the other things you said is the kind of assurance that ive gotten and other Ranking Members have gotten in asking your counter parts across government. So for you to revert to some kind of supposed precedent that the that there is some kind of unique channel to the chairs of the who represent the majority party, that the way i ask the question represents my historical understanding. And my experience in numerous committees and in numerous administrations, i have never heard what you articulating, made explicit or for that matter as just it just doesnt reflect my experience. And, so, there is something new here. And what is your assurance mean . You say where possible you will respond. What what kind of well, mr. Chairman, i do not want to get into an argument and i am not being disrespectful. But i have been in the federal government before in this branch and this has been the precedent before. But having said that, there are circumstances. I can say to you i will work with both sides of the aisle to the best that i can and there will be some issues on oversight that it must come from the majority, whether democrat or republican. That has been a long standing practice. And i have been in government in the executive branch when the majority was a democrat. Well, i must say its not been my experience and the kind of issues the chairman just raised, the kind of things that are our daytoday gris for the mill here, airport noise, you know, the kinds of bureaucratic snaf fews that develop. We have so many things we need to bring up with you in these hearings and questions for the record. The issue is oversight. This is not a blanket of not answering requests. It is an issue specifically related to oversight. So we, of course, will help members on both sides of the aisle, Technical Assistance, with information, with constituent services. Youll find that in my record, we always are very, very responsive. I think in this particular case, it refers to oversight. Well, oversight is about oversight of executive performance, agency performance. The Appropriations Committee is the epitome of congressional oversight and it has historically been nonpartisan, bipartisan that the administration is called to account no matter who the president is, no matter what the Party Division is, the administration is called to account by this committee. That is the american system, the power of the purse. Totally agree. And the notion that that would somehow be segmented. This is a memo that we have received. Yes, thats right. And it is public. Youve made it much more explicit than other secretaries have and we certainly will need to explore this further. Thank you, mr. Price. Mr. Culberson . I appreciate your service to the country. That was the policy under president obama when the four years that the democrats were in the majority here, the administration followed the exact same policy that you just read. So youre exactly right. And of course we all Work Together. I know mr. Price works very well. We all work very well on any oversight that the minority has, i know our chairman would work with him arm in arm. I want to focus on a speech that President Trump gave at the department of transportation, madam secretary, where he pointed out that it only took four years to build the Golden Gate Bridge and only five years to build the hoover dam and less than one year to build the Empire State Building but now it can take much longer. For example, on highway permitting, 16 different approvals, including ten different federal agencies being governed by 26 different statutes. In a case of an 18mile road in maryland, they had to build approval and permitting they spent 29 million for environmental report, weighing 75 pounds and costing 24,000 per page. President trump quite correctly said at that speech, and hes absolutely right about this, i was not elected to continue a failed system. I was elected to change it. All of us in Government Service were elected to solve the problems that have plagued our nation. Were here to think boldly, were here to think big and rise above petty, partisan squabbling. Its time to Start Building our country and were here to take action. Hes absolutely right. The bold and agenda that hes taken to cut through all of the red tape when it comes to transportation. I want to ask specifically, much of this lies within your authority. I wonder if you could talk to us about what you have done and what you can do with the authority that you already have as secretary to combine the permitting process, make sure they go in parallel to accomplish what the president has passed. Number two, this committee is better equipped than any other to help the president achieve his agenda with our authority over the power of the purse, that as James Madison said is the single most powerful check and balance on the executive branch. So number one, what can you do and have you done to speed up the permitting process . And secondly, what can the chairman and this subcommittee working arm in arm in a bipartisan way do to help simplify the permitting process that President Trump is so correctly focused on. The administration issued an executive order very early in the administration coming on board and this executive order takes a look at the regulatory aspects that delay Infrastructure Projects. Set up a council that was designed the Infrastructure Council deregulatory council as well. To come up with a report and recommendations . Right. As you mentioned, it talks about the ways in which permitting can be permitting process can be streamlined if there are concurrent if there are sequential processes, whether they can be made to occur concurrently if they are duplicative processes, whether they can collapsed or consolidated. And this is also an effort throughout the government. So in the Infrastructure Task force, there are about 16 different agencies, federal agencies and so the department of transportation is also working with epa and with the department of defense, army corps of engineers, with fish and wildlife and many other departments in an effort to see how we can work Better Together to facilitate and speed along some of these Infrastructure Projects. I guess what im driving, and youre right, of course it needs to be carefully examined and thought through, but the president is right, that he was elected to think big, act boldly. What can be done to speed that up . Weve had a lot of council and commissions before to study things. Youve got the authority i believe to cut through this red tape and create parallel permitting and no committee in congress is better equipped than the Appropriations Committee to support new that effort. The chairmans got your back, weve got your back. What can we do to help speed that up in order to really act quickly and boldly . Well, the president has also made it very clear that he would like to reduce the infrastructure regulatory process from ten years to two years. And so hes very resultsoriented and we are looking at that. I look forward to working with you on that. I know the chairman is as well and mr. Price. Please come to us with specific suggestions so we can help that process along as quickly as possible. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Culberson. We are honored to have the Ranking Member of the full committee. Youve been running around between hearings. Miss lowey. We have a defense hearing, an epa hearing and i have the privilege and pleasure of attending them all. Madam secretary, weve had the opportunity to meet before and i congratulate you on taking this position. But i am truly shocked with a report i just received while i was in another committee. I understand there was a question for mr. Price that youve referred to the department of justice guidelines about responding to oversight requests in that you stated that you will respond to Committee Chairs and work with the minority when possible. Ive known you a long time. Ive been in this congress for 28 years. I cannot believe that this is true. Does this mean, if i have a request and i send you a substantive question, you may or may not or your department may or may not respond . You kocouldnt have said that. I have always worked across the aisle and i want to reassure the members on the that i will always work with the committee. And if there are specific instances, please come to me. I will be more than glad to work with you. So youre saying that you say to the committee but youre responding to my request as Ranking Member of the minority as wells you would to our distinguished chair with frankly whom i work very closely and have enormous respect and i just want to make this clear that on appropriations, we always say there are democrats, republicans and appropriators. So i just want to hear you say you will respond to requests whether were a democrat or a republican. You dont have to agree with me, but i think each of us, democrat or republican, deserve a pros. Can you respond again . I will try my best, but i will try my best. I will take that as, yes, you will respond to i dont understand when you say youll try your best, but i will try my best, but its and you know me. I do. In my history, ive always so just say, yes, of course ill respond to you. I cant quite say that. So that leaves a question, madam secretary. So think about it while i ask another question, because im really surprised that you wouldnt say, of course, congresswoman, you know me. Ill respond whether its a democrat or a republican. One more chance. Its always been my history. Ive always done it that way. Its always been but there is precedent that if the administration has oversight if the administration does have the previous practice of conducting answers to certain oversight questions in a certain way. Let me just say this and ill get on to another substantive question because the chairman is being very generous with me. You dont have to agree with me. You dont have to agree with my distinguished colleagues and we could have healthy debates because thats what congress is all about. But i am really shocked that you wouldnt just say, of course i respond whether its a democrat or a republican or a citizen. So ill go on to the next question. And i would like to follow up on mr. Prices infrastructure plan question. Im concerned that the president s plan lacks actual funding and instead would put a period don on state and local taxpayers to pay for those programs. This would be particularly catastrophic in a state like new york which gives more in federal tax dollars than it receives from the federal government. You remember hearing that from senator moynihan who documented that many years ago. So if new york is getting less in tax dollars and giving more, already pays some of the highest taxes in the country, it would be unfair, in my judgment, to force new yorkers to pay for even more, particularly when many infrastructure developments and economic gains in new york benefit the economy of the entire nations. Do you have more details about how President Trump plans to pay for his infrastructure plan and how will you ensure this infrastructure plan does to raise taxes, to pay for federally directed projects . The president has always emphasized the need for new infrastructure and he has talked about a trillion dollars, 200 billion of that would be direct government funding. Some of the moneys will come from sale of public assets and then the remaineder would be partnerships and cooperations between the private and Public Sector and through leveraging up use of the federal dollars, which will be used like in the c capital that will allow more innovative, more creative financings and that leveraging through private Public Partnership is very often seen. Right now we have certain states that dont allow the private structure to fund Public Infrastructure. So we want to be able to let the private sector come in and if they want to, fund Public Sector Infrastructure Projects and if there are ways in which they can participate that will help alleviate the murder den on taxpayers, i think thats something that we should welcome. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your generosity of time. Ill just conclude by saying, i am a strong supporter of private Public Partnerships but i am strongly opposed to a proposal when President Trump has emphasized infrastructure and without help from the federal government for the new tap pan see bridge, as you know that is going up, and without redevelopment of Laguardia Airport and kennedy airport, a lot of these Infrastructure Programs create real jobs. And at tif the private sector w to contribute, thats great. I know that you know the town of harrison and my constituents would be very upset if their taxes are going up to pay for responsibilities of the federal government. It just doesnt make sense to me. So id like to continue this discussion because most people today who responded to President Trump were people who said im tired of paying taxes that keep going up and up and President Trump was very forceful about infrastructure, creating jobs. So i dont think they knew when they responded to his comments that theyre going to pay for those Infrastructure Projects. Youre going to pay either way. If its a trillion dollars in direct government funding, thats taxes. Thats taxes, but its the federal responsibility and when you see all these cuts that we have in the domestic side of the budget, theres a real concern. So which is why we need the private sector to be involved so we can leverage their input and participation as well. I am delighted to have the private sector involved but i dont want, frankly, the responsibility for these major Infrastructure Programs that the president talked about and how he was going to create jobs fall on the tax base of our local citizens. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman, for your generosity. Thank you, thank you gentle lady. Obviously the Ranking Member of the full committee is always going to have some leeway. But i will ask the members now to please adhere as much as possible to the five minutes rule. Thank you again for your generosity and your constant willingness to Work Together on this committee. Thank you, madam. Thank you, miss lowey. Mr. Young . Be a little less lenient than we were with the chairman and Ranking Member. You just took five seconds. You can have those. We have not started the clock yet. And for being so nice, ill give you five minutes and five seconds. How is that . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Secretary chao, thank you for being here and for your past Public Services and other departments and what youre doing today. Ive always admired your bipartisan approach, your fair approach to your role in leadership and in the administration. So thank you for that. I want to ask about talk about infrastructure. You talk about in your statement, you say, our transportation infrastructure is aging and i think we can all agree on that. And we need a focused approach to address this problem. I think we also need a focused approach to address new advancements in transportation, new technologies, new vehicles when it comes to taking a look at what infrastructure looks like when you have Autonomous Vehicles, when you have artificial intelligence. Should we be looking at a different approach or different way to ensure that the next transportation grid is ready to go for the 20second entry and not be stuck in kind of an analog approach as we have in the past . Do we need different surfaces, different tracks within roads . Do we need sensors out there . Will all of the vehicles be talking to each other . I just want to make sure that were all thinking about this as we go into the new century. And the future is here. It really is. How do you see these new technologies influencing and infrastructure package . All that you are discussing is currently being examined and reviewed in various aspects of the transportation infrastructure proposal. The infrastructure proposal does not just have transportation. It includes other departments, other areas. For example, energy, water, Veterans Affairs and possibly broadband. That has yet to be determined. But what you say about Autonomous Vehicles on the ground and in the air is partly a reason why the air Traffic Control system is being considered in terms of the need for upgrade and the need to be kept abreast of stateoftheart technology and on the roads were thinking more about how do we accommodate the concerns with Autonomous Vehicles on the ground, in terms of traffic but also in terms of safety, security and privacy. So all those issues are part of the National Dialogue that needs to occur as we talk about this infrastructure project, proposal. It will actually be probably three different phases, meaning it will be short term, medium term and long term. Right now were talking about the short term, which is a trillion dollars over ten years cannot be funded as the as our friends on the other side of the aisle would like by direct federal funding. That would create a tremendous impact, adverse impact on our deficit and also create havoc introduce potential havoc with the private sector markets with such a large injection of federal funding. So there are states, as ive mentioned, that do prohibit private Public Partnerships. While thats not the only solution, it should not be discriminated against and the private sector, if capable, should be allowed to invest in Public Infrastructure. So all of that is going on and theres a shortterm and longterm consideration of all of these issues. Weve had some very interesting hearings already with the private sector on the new technologies, Autonomous Vehicles, what it means, how we can adapt to it. The department and this committee, we need to keep being engaged on this issue but, more importantly, for us and for you and your department, i think its imperative that we are really engaging every day the private sector because they are driving this and with consumer demand as well. Ive got about 35 seconds if you have the five seconds, ive got 40. The Highway Trust Fund has not been selfsustaining since about 2007. Because of advancements, again, in technologies, innovation with new vehicles out there, new fuels or ways to power vehicles, how do we ensure those using our roads and bridges are paying their fair share, you know, kind of pay to play on our roads and are not getting away with not contributing to making sure that we have an uptodate Infrastructure Program of our roads and bridges because there could be despaisparity out ther. They are not paying into the Highway Trust Fund but using the system. What ideas does the d. O. T. Have that we should consider . If you can name any, just give me a sense of confidence that youre thinking about this because we need to think about it. Well, there are various ways to fund the infrastructure proposal. Offed off the top of my head, i can name 13 to 17. None of them are attractive. We all want the benefit but some groups will not like some solutions. But the longstanding problem of the trust fund the Highway Trust Fund has been resolved until 2020. But as we prepare for fiscal year 2019 budget, which is going to be coming up this summer and as we talk about the infrastructure proposal, we have to and im underscoring your point, with vehicle miles being the formula for the gasoline tax, its not going to be sustainable. So we do have to take a look at it. We have not yet made any decisions or conclusions nor agreement among ourselves as to how to do that yet. But suffice it to say that nothing is off the table. Thank you for your testimony and being with us today, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, madam secretary, for being here. I dont see the boldness. I think you look at what you talk about in aging infrastructure but whos using what. In our urban areas, we have an 85 billion state of good repair. Chicago transit authority, the Chicago Transit Authority carries more people than amtrak nationwide in a month. And we combine the state of good repair there and with metro the numbers are staggering. These are not conducive to Public Private partnerships. Im all for those. But for to use it as, weve got this bold new idea, were going to do this, is extraordinary limited with where people are going. Millennials are not buying cars. Theyre doing ride shares, theyre riding bikes and thank god theyre using Public Transportation. But ive got an antiquated system that is carrying more people all the time. In this budget, the grants, the Capital Investment grants are cut in half. So what are we saying . Were going to have a bold new idea to transport people the way we did 50 years ago. Wheres the boldness . How does pub like private partnerships work and how do you build positive train control in all of our light rail systems in and around the United States as a whole . The infrastructure proposal is going to address four principles. One is to target the most transformative projects. Two is to encourage states and localities to take their own action with federal aid coming in terms of streamlining regulations and permitting. Three is to tap into the private sector capital and management methods. And four is to align the infrastructure with the entity best suited for operation and maintenance. Were going to give the states a great deal of flexibility and theyre going to have a lot of say in how all of this is to be spent. Look, metro and the Chicago Transit Authority arent worried about permitting. Theyre not worried about the state getting in their way. Theyre worried about an ever increasing demand and the fact that Public Private partnerships arent going to help them at all. Some of this just takes federal dollars. So youve outlined four things that do absolutely nothing for those two entities. And take away half of the funding to make them continue to have rolling stock. Let me tell you, these folks are democrats and republicans. My metro trains come through chicago but go out to my friend peters district. These are all people who right now these are entities that need resources. At some point in time, youve got to rebuild track and youve got to repurchase rolling stock. They dont have that. Nationally, the backlog on repairs is extraordinary. So outlining four things that will help private sector entities or states move forward with permitting means almost nothing to them at their most vital need. Approximately 84 of transportation dollars come from the state and local. Im not saying that were not going to participate. What i am saying is under the infrastructure proposal, the state and localities will have great freedom and flexibility. Lets just say you put more money into a trillion dollar infrastructure package. You just took away half their funding for the direct Grant Program and the states match those dollars so youve done nothing. Right now youve cut them in half. This is absolutely vital. So lets just say you come back and say, well, were going to have this trillion dollar package and some of that is going to include you will have taken it from one spigot and taken it to another. Thats even if you do this. Obviously we disagree with some of the purposes so were repurposing it. So youre taking money so were basically going so youre putting it where . Well, we havent thats going to be in the details of the infrastructure proposal which will come out in the fall of this year. Youve got to have some inclination. Youve given us the lead on this, that we dont care as much about Public Transportation. No, i didnt say that. Well, you cut it in half. So it cant be a priority if you cut it in half. It will be reshifted, repackaged and repurposed in the infrastructure proposal. Of what . And the details have not come out yet. Where would you send it if its not Public Transportation . That decision has not been made yet. Okay. Thank you. Again, were also thrilled to have chairman with us. Those that are not happy, hes the one to blame. Mr. Chairman . I apologize. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Youre doing a great job and im grad i had the wisdom to name to you this post. Madam secretary, good to see you. Welcome to the hill. Good to see you outside of kentucky, although we love you back there. Thank you. As well. Infrastructure, of course, is the name of the game this year. We are all tired of traveling on chuck old streets, bridges that are falling, waterways that are not being traversed properly and the like so we share your enthusiasm for doing Something Big on infrastructure improvement. Ive noticed on page 2 of your statement where you list the key elements, key principles of the infrastructure plan that will involve 13 federal departments and agencies in concert. The first principle that you list is that the moneys would be made spent on the most transformative projects. Tell me what that means. I think the president would like something that is bold, that is innovative, something that will really speak to the future and address the concerns of the future. Having said that, i understand your question and that is youre ke concerned about Rural America. Yes. I come, as you know, from a state that is very rural. So i am concerned about access, ridership and the ability of Rural America to be part of the American Dream as well. There will be a separate title to the infrastructure proposal that will address Rural America. The dollar amount has not yet been decided but we are very cognizant of the needs of royal america. Where is the center of the effort to finance study how to finance the Infrastructure Improvements . Where is that Research Going on . Is that in your department . You might want to push open push the talk. I think you asked how will this all be paid for . Yeah. And im asking, who is studying that portion of the problem . The white house, all of us, prior to your arrival here, we talked about various different ways that theres a plet thoer ra plethora of ways to pay for infrastructure. As of yet, no decision has been ma made. No agreement, i should say, has coalesced. None of the payment forms are ideal. At this point, suffice it to say that nothing is off the table. And as youve mentioned, there are about 16 different Government Agencies around the Infrastructure Task force thats grappling with how to pay for all of this. Well, given the financial situation of the country and of the states and localities, its pretty plain that the money to do whatever were going to do has got to come from somewhere else. Ir i. E. , private sector. Do you a ggree with that . Yes. I understand that our colleagues, our friends on the other side would prefer 100 funding of 1 trillion and ive just said that that would increase our deficit quite a bit and would create some havoc within the private markets because its such a large presence of federal dollars. So the president is looking more toward using 200 billion in direct federal funding infrastructure, using that as seed money and selling off some public assets and using the federal amount to entice or to partner in creative publish private partnerships, which we have seen in the past. Yes. Theres examples of this. For example, indiana ten years ago or so sold the toll road for billions of dollars. And then used those proceeds to build the roads around the rest of the state. Is that a possible way to go here . Toll roads certainly are an increasingly popular way to finance infrastructure. But i am also cognizant, as i mentioned, i understand both sides. That some people may not like toll roads but its a very effective way to finance new roads. All of us dont like toll roads. But some of us may tolerate those. But the selling what im talking about is the selling of the asset and i assume the buyer of that highway would need to enact tolls in order to pay off the purchase price. This actually is a big issue, whether we sell all of these public assets. And actually, theres a discussion going on about concerns about selling Public Infrastructure to foreign interests and whether that is there is a sentiment that that is not desirable. So were thinking about some lease and buyback. These are one of many, many ideas that are being surfaced as to how we can finance it. Good luck to you. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Representative clark . Thank you, mr. Chairman. We are delighted by your departme appointment and i also want to thank you for your commitment on the green line extension in massachusetts and for being up in boston recently. A lot of hard work has gone into that project and it wouldnt have been possible without the assistance of your department and so we thank you for that. And i have lots of substantive questions but i really was struck by your comments earlier in response to Ranking Member price, especially today, the day after such horrifying events and attacks on our colleagues yesterday. So i just want to be sure that i understand what youre saying. There was a letter of counsel to the president on may 1st of 2017. Is that the opinion that you are citing from doj . What i am not giving credit for, and im trying very hard, im not trying to anger anybody, especially after what you mentioned, what happened yesterday, but this is established precedent and i dont seem to be given credit for that. It is. Ive been in the government before. So just a precedent or not, there is a line in that note that also says it is established precedent but it reads, individual members of congress including ranking minority members do not have the authority to conduct oversight in the absence of a specific delegation by a full House Committee or subcommittee. Is that your understanding of the law . That has always been the case with any executive branch. So thats a yes . Thats a yes . Im committed to working with both sides of this committee. I understand. I just want to know if thats your understanding, that individual members do not have any thats been the precedent. Thats been the precedent. Okay. So that is your understanding of the law and the policy of department of transportation . Its not Just Department of transportation. This has been the precedent for Previous Administrations. But youre the secretary of transportation. Thats your understanding of the policy . I think its throughout. Yes. Okay. And your understanding is thats throughout the branch . The executive branch. Its always been that way. For every administration. Im going to move on to positive train control, which is a big issue back in states like massachusetts and really across the country as the fast act authorized 199 million out of the mass transit account to create this Grant Program. But states like mine are trying to meet the deadline for implementation but have struggled to find the financing to complete the installation. My understanding is that the application for this Grant Program has not yet been fully implemented. As a result, you have to complete two different applications. One for tifia, one for rif . Rifr . Im not sure i have that right. Can you give us an example of how this implementation has been going and whether theres been a streamlining in the application process. I can speculate but let me my Due Diligence and get you specifically information. Im pleased to work with you on that. That would be helpful because i think its become a redundant application process. Its really causing some problems. Ill look into it. On the state maritime academies, they are essential to a vibrant merchant marine and ensuring the key to our National Security. These academies rely on training ships to fulfill their mission. There is a college that is now 56 years old and lifetime expected to end in 2019. The t. S. Kennedy is 51 years old and its useful service life is estimated to end in 2025. The 2017 ndaa directed d. O. T. To complete the design of replacement and im hoping that you can tell me, has the design of the National Security multimission vessel been completed and can you talk about the replacement of these ships . Well, mass maritime and soomey maritime are Great Academies and graduate outstanding men and women every year. Im familiar with this. These two ships are the oldest. They need to be replaced. Unfortunately, we have its an issue of cost as well. One ship will cost 300 million. For all of the maritime academies, that would be over a billion dollars in direct outlay. So we are looking at this issue. And i just recently spoke with i was at with the mass maritime president and also new york maritime president. So this is an issue that has to be somehow addressed. Perhaps one way would be a renovated and waivers are required because it would not be u. S. Built but that could possibly be 150 million per ship. So were looking at different ways at how do we address this problem. Congressman valadao . Thank you, madam sect ter, for your time. Last month the department of transportation approved 647 million of federal grant range during the last Previous Administration and the grant requires the state match the officials requires that a state match that officials have indicated will come from proposition 1a, approved by voters for californias highspeed rail project. With the use of those funds, its being challenged in court. If the funds do not become available, what happens to the federal grant and california speed rail is very unlikely to secure private funding. Do you have any confidence in them being able to match the prop 1a funds Going Forward . That is actually a concern that cal trans needs to consider very carefully themselves. The timing of this particular contract was very sensitive. It was signed off on january 17th of 2017, three days before the end of the Previous Administration. However, theres a process by which that goes up to the congress for 30 days. Disputes or rebuttals or challenges can occur. That really did not happen. And when the omnibus basically inserted 170 million into this, it made the cut for full funding agreement. And the department signed it. So for those that are involved in the project, to have the funding for 2017 for future years they do need to be thinking ahead as to what they want to do. How do you plan on holding them accountable for spending those federal dollars, to make sure that they are properly accounted for but also properly spent . I mean, the whole highspeed Rail Authority has faced a lot of scrutiny. All 14 members are republican delegation signed a letter specifically asking you not to until they gave an audit and gave us some sort of background. Prior to the approval of the federal send a letter regarding highspeed rail infeasible counterproductive project. And cited the projects costs increases and are you ducks in its scope and failure to secure state and public funding. Completes an audit of the project and the findings be made public. Do you think that was im very much aware of that letter. We tried very hard to work with both sides of the aisle to come to some resolution but when that omnibus bill came through with the full consent of the both houses of the congress, there was no choice. It was 170 million that had to proceed. There were some statements from your office that you were planning on sending more depending on future appropriations. I dont have any money. If theres future appropriations and dictated by congress, of course i have to send it. And then there is a natural process of monitoring that goes on for every single one of these projects and so those natural processes will be in place and they will see that money is not wasted and that they are aptly applied. Madam secretary, california has received 3. 55 billion in federal funding. Finance report from the federal Railroad Administration admits that the highspeed Rail Authority is unlikely to meet spending deadlines established by the grants and would be forced to forefit upwards of 220 million back to the federal government. Im concerned that the authority will start to use the grant money as a slush Fund Spending on frivolous projects outside the highspeed rail project. Does the department of transportation require detailed reports on how california highspeed Rail Authority is spending those dollars and do you feel that the department has proper oversight over where those funds are being spent . I do. Ive only been there four months but according to what ive seen so far, its a very professional organization and there are processes in place to monitor how funds are spent. This is really a matter before the congress. We are mandated by what comes from the congress and so the money was mandated and they needed to go out. All right. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, sir. Mr. Aguilar . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Just to follow up on that, madam secretary, there was a difference of opinion, as you mentioned, on that cal tran issue. I know our office and i personally heard from Business Leaders in Northern California who were concerned when you talked earlier in your answer and making sure the federal government has capital and i think conflating highspeed rail and cal train isnt fair. This is a line thats already operating as it has hundreds of millions of dollars of planned investments, that those individuals have taxed themselves to do and i think electrification is something that is helpful for the environment. Well reassure that line and push more commuters through that transit mode, which should be our responsibility to help. So i appreciate the consideration that your agency put forward in making that award. I did want to shift briefly to tiger grants. In my community, we were awarded an 8 million tiger grant, Passenger Rail program that connects popular Transit Center and terminates a local university. In between the two are job centers as well as a local Va Health Care facility and will create thousands of jobs connecting lowincome residents with alternative and affordable transit routes and i heard your comments and read your testimony about tiger previously but given the benefits of this program in my district and other disiktric around the country, what does the d. O. T. Rely on to decide the elimination or phasing out of this program would be beneficial to our National Infrastructure system . I think the purpose was to basically there was a basic philosophical disagreement of whether segregated moneys like that should be specifically used in an earmarklike way. But having said that, this is the will of the congress so you certainly have every flexibility and, you know, way to restore what you think that you would like. This is a new administration so are you saying that tiger Grant Funding was earmarked . Is that what i heard you say . Earmark like. Earmark like. Okay. But again, this is a matter before im new to the committee. I defer to the Ranking Member and chairman to describe the program and those who helped craft the language in prior administrations or prior congresses but then there clearly are prohibitions against that. So i think would take issue with that characterization. But i will say that creating programs that help our communities is exactly our role here in congress. None of us, to my knowledge, inserted any language specific to a project. Were prohibited from doing that. Youre right. Its competitively bid. And the administration is responsible to decide. But that should be in the corpus. We would prefer it to be within the moneys available rather than have it like siphoned aside for some specific purpose. But having said that, were willing to work with you and for those that this is a very popular program, members of Congress Like it, and so we will respond to the will of congress. So you disagree with our ability to siphon aside funding or take issue with it the Administration May take issue with it but youre creating something that youre going to roll out in the fall that would siphon aside hundreds of millions of hundreds of billions of dollars in projects that would be up to the administration to suggest . No. Were not saying that at all. We have yet to unveil our proposal. So thats not to say distribution of the funds will occur one way or the other. Thats still under advisement and discussion. How is how do you view and back to your comment before about seed capital, because i think that as you mentioned and in your transportation document, you mention in your fact sheet that so much investment is occurring at the local level. Local voters have taxed themselves to build Infrastructure Projects. As a local mayor, i was on the authority that allocated those funds. How do you differenciate the seed capital, as you mentioned, for some projects yet tiger and other projects, you dont view that as seed capital that is helpful to the creation of jobs and the movement of goods and bodies . Well, the tiger grants, i know that theyre very popular but they were created as an aside, kind of like a separate aside pool of funds and i think it would make much more sense if they were all put together in a large pool where they are available to the states and to be used as they see fit. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, madam secretary. Thank you, sir. Mr. Joyce . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, madam secretary. Thank you for being here today. Ive heard from a number of constituents and local leaders in my district who were worried about the scope of the metropolitan the mpos. While i appreciate their cohesive regional plan, its important that we do not continue down a path of federalizing community planning. Can you shed any light on the administrations views on this and if there might be some push now or in the future to alter this range of authority . We have heard from a number of members on both the senate and the house and we actually i think we have actually rescinded all of that. And i will check on that for you, the metropolitan planning authorities. Good news. Moving right along, as you notice, and i understand there have been some questions asked prior to this, but this subcommittee recently met with the field experts working on emerging transportation technologies, including Autonomous Vehicles. And im encouraged by this research thus far as they have extreme potential to make our roadways safer so i want to make sure were doing everything we can to support these vehicles and hopefully their widespread use. You recently visited the center visited in my home state of ohio. Along route highway 33, underground installation of highcapacity fiber optic cable. This will provide the information necessary to support aton mo at Autonomous Vehicles. I believe the Buckeye State has given everything like trc uniquely positioned to test and rapidly deploy these technologies. I may ask you, what role of support to our safetymaking agencies, such as nihtsa, do you see these improving rounds play and how can the committee or this department best equip them to carry out the work to deploy the Autonomous Vehicles . These proving grounds are very popular and the last administration a few days prior to his departure had issued sort of like a Good Housekeeping a seal to about ten proving grounds. Were in the process of looking at all of that. What i hear, actually, from major automotive manufacturers and other entrepreneurial entities that deal with Autonomous Vehicles is that they are going to australia. Theyre going to other countries where theres much less regulations that govern how they are to test, where they are to test and under what circumstances. So i dont think the issue is which state gets these proving grounds. The issue is how do we make the whole United States more open while respecting the regulations that we have rather than have these i mean, these Companies American companies go overseas to test their products. I certainly agree with you and pledge your efforts to keep them here. But ohio, as you know there is one in particular that didnt make it. Correct. And the state has invested a lot of money in as well. Ive actually went there to visit. I mentioned that in my notes. Were very happy that you went there and had the opportunity to visit and hopefully, as youre in review of this, you take that into consideration. Because as youre well aware, ohio had these two brothers named the wright that created flight and a guy named john glenn who was in the senate with your husband who flew around the world for the first time in a ca cap sul. We like to be outfront in these technologies and we would appreciate you giving it to your local as we dont want to lose any business to australia. Thank you for bringing that up again. Thanks. Mr. Dent . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, madam secretary. I represent a large portion of the Lehigh Valley of pennsylvania. In recent years, we have seen a growth in freight traffic and operations which includes truck, rail and transportation. This trend is expected to continue in the industry and is expected to grow even more. Part of this growth is a result of changing Customer Expectations about speed at delivery and this kind of growth presents an economic and Employment Opportunities but also requires that infrastructure keep pace with these types of development and as a Transportation System assumes a growing role in supporting congress, how has the department anticipated addressing the needs to maintain our roads, bridges and railways and airports, specifically in the areas that are seeing increased freight activity . Freight is very important. We sometimes forget that. But it is a lifeline for the Economic Vitality of our country. So part of the infrastructure proposal will also include consideration of freight, their Passenger Rail issues with Freight Lines and intermodal efficiencies that are desirable to facilitate the Rapid Movement of freight. So were very much aware of those and i dont want to i cant say too much about the specifics yet but freight is obviously a very big concern. Can i ask you, too, just about the infrastructure package and how we might pay for this. I understand the Public Private nature of this whole thing, which i certainly think is important, but a public component as well and, you know, adorable, sustainable Revenue Source will be important. Has the administration taken an opinion on how through maybe tax reform you might be able to find that adorable, sustainable source and are you open to the highway user fee . In the beginning part of our discourse internally, there was a discussion about having this be part of the having some portion of tax reform be involved in funding infrastructure. That those discussions, it seems, have ebbed. I dont know ebbed and flowed. Is that the receded. So it may come back again. But as of now, i think secretary mnuchin has already said that tax reform will not be part of the funding of infrastructure. But that, again, may change. The second issue you mentioned was that was mostly it. That was mostly it. So everything is still on the table. And gasoline tax, you mentioned . Yeah, user fee. Yeah, the user fees. The user fees are and the gasoline tax, that obviously is a very quarrelsome issue among some quarters and so what i can say is that nothings off the table. Okay. Final question. The administration and congress, as we consider this infrastructure and transportation package, i believe we have an opportunity to begin integrating some new technologies that will greatly benefit americans in their daily lives. One of these is the Hydrogen Fuel cells, water vapor. As you may know, a number of states have made commitments to adopt zero emission standards for the Auto Industry and i know that fuel cells Hydrogen Fuel cell vehicles are one options that automatic makers are pursing to meet this goal. How is the industry working to ensure successful rollout of Hydrogen Infrastructure and i know the Previous Administration wasnt particularly supportive of hydrogen. Id like to hear your thoughts. Were looking at all new technologies. The basic principle is that we want to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. This is a new area that we are looking at. Weve just gotten into office so we dont have a conclusion on that yet but were looking at it. Thank you. Ill yield back with 20 seconds to spare. Thank you, mr. Dent. Madam secretary, theres a lot of interest so what im thinking is lets do another round and limit it to three minutes per question and answer. Weve had multiple hearings, madam secretary, regarding next g gen programs and whether its issues like adsb or Datacom Development or the next gen weather programs. And well i may submit questions but those are issues that i think are looking like really good successes and i want to get feedback from you, but i dont think we have enough time to do that today. I want to talk about the nextgen advisory committee. This committee has been set up as a Publicprivate Partnership to guide the nextgen decisionmaking. Do you think that that body this body is the effective is an effective body to help guide our air traffic investments for the future . Its an advisory committee. Ive not met with them, ive met individual members, ive not met with the committee in total yet. Its about 35 members. And they meet about three times a year. They certainly offer a great deal of Technical Assistance there are people who are steeped in various aspects of the aviation industry. And i think its always good to get diversity and variety of opinions and advice. And i dont know if youve had the opportunity to look at some of the stakeholders and determine if those are you know if thats appropriate list of stakeholders represented, i dont know if youve had the opportunity to look at that yet. I have a list here. I always think its always helpful to get as broad a representation of industry stakeholder groups wherever possible. Whenever possible. Also madam secretary if there are ways you think we can improve that, improve the effectiveness of that, thats one of those things that you know id like to be in touch with you. I dont know if you have any ideas at this stage. Of course. I dont say this enough. But we want to work with the committee, we want to work with the congress. And were very open. Well madam secretary, you have a history of doing that. So again thank you for saying that. But more importantly, the words you have a history of doing that. So which is why i think all of us are thrilled that you accepted to do this. And to once again serve here. Have you been able to see the benefits that weve seen to date regarding the adsb, the automatic, automated dependant surveillance broadcast, catchy name. Now that its been completed, have you had the opportunity to see how, how thats doing . The benefits . Its actually one of the successes of the whole nextgen effort. I do not i commend faa and i commend the men and women at the faa, who are doing a tremendous job against difficult circumstances. Theyve been able to maintain the system, work through the air Traffic Control. Despite challenging circumstances. The system is as safe as it is, and as good as it is, not because of the current government structure, but in spite of it. I think it says a lot about the men and women who work there. We want to do better. And as i mentioned earlier, were going to disagree on this. Is that thinking about the future. Thinking about the future increased traffic, increased congestion. When we talk about the nextgen, the project that you mentioned, its adb, you know, we were talking radar here. With radar, its just sweep once every six seconds, within 12 seconds an airplane travels one mile so we need to be in a gps system. And not the still tied to 1960s technology of using radar. We have the technology now. Thats just one example and there are many other examples of where the new technological advantages which are available to us, were still not, faa, air Traffic Control, we are still not quite up to speed on. And thats what we need to improve on. Madam secretary, this is a conversation well continue to have. I do want to note that, that the u. S. Has deployed the adsb gps technology. The issue is not technology is not available, the issue is that the airports need to equip themselves with it. Those are conversations i look forward to having with you. I have an answer to that one too. This is a long conversation, mr. Price . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Madam secretary, i want to achieve some can closure on your earlier conversation with me and miss lloyd and miss clark. Saying that the reason you obviously took us aback. Is that your answer departs from what weve heard what i personally heard from other cabinet secretaries, about this matter. In my personal case, carson kelly mnuchin. I assure you its not a question of your goodwill. We dont doubt your goodwill. The question is of policy, the obligation that anyone in your position has to respond to oversight inquiries from dulyelected members of congress. Particularly the committees charged with funding and overseeing your department. Let me ask you about Capital Investment grants, new starts, your budget request upends the precedent of federal support for transit projects. Specifically the budget would cut off federal funding for new transit projects. And those currently in the cig pipeline and spare only those projects with full Funding Grant agreements already in place. I want to ask you about that in particular, that pipeline. I applaud you for advancing projects like phoenix. Pittsburgh, the, they went into project development. The new york canarsie line went into engineering. Going forward, are you going to continue to rate, review and move projects through the pipeline . And b what about small starts . The fiscal 2017 omnibus provided funding for ten small starts projects. When do you expect to sign small start grant agreements for those projects and award the funds to the sponsors . Its actually more complicated question. Which i dont think youll appreciate. But the current guideline from the administration is that for small starts, that theres going to be, theres not funding, then i cant sign the full funding agreement. And if i cant sign the full funding agreement, obviously theres no funding. But it really depends on the congress. Right now for those that do not have funding, i cant, i wont be able to sign it. As im understanding, there is in the through fiscal 17 bill, there is full funding for six of those. Yes, and theyre actually listed if youre on that list, youll get funding. If youre not on that list, then you wont. All right. Can you tell us about the pipeline Going Forward, since our time is limited . What about the continuation of rating and reviewing and moving projects through. The administration does not support new starts. Well on what basis did you advance pittsburgh and phoenix and new york canarsie. I think they were already defined as new starts. Theres actually a list. Youre moving into project development and engineering. That is a process thats ongoing. Is that process going to stop . I dont think so. I mean these cities are not, these, they will have to now consider what they want to do. If they dont have the funding, beyond 2017, what would they do . That is the question. And i cant answer it for them. They may go to Publicprivate Partnerships. May find other sources of funding. But that is something theyre going to have to consider. You have no answer for them. Youre going to continue to move them into these various phases, these early phases. But i think a good part, the good part is, people will, its pretty clear. If youre on that list, as i mentioned a fiscal year 2017, or thats for the first cal year 2018 if youre on that list you can be assured of some certainty. If youre not, its probably not going to be funded. So its pretty clear. And then alternative plans have to be made. My time has expired. There are projects in this, in this kind of betwixt and between discussion, situation so we do need to have some understanding of that. Lets discuss this offline. Thank you. Thank you, chairman. Madam secretary, livestock haulers in my district and across the country have challenging tasks of balancing the safety and motorists and the health and welfare of animals being transported. The impending december 18, 2017 electric logging device enforcement date and existing hours of Service Rules do not adequately accommodate this subject. Of the trucking industry. Industry members and authorities have expressed the need for delayed implementation of the rule to address concerns and provide sufficient training and education for the uniform compliance and enforcement. While motorists safety remain as top priority so does the welfare of our animals. What longterm solution do you recommend to insure both motorist safety as well as Animal Welfare . Probably not one you spend a lot of time on. Im sad to hear that, of course we want to protect our pets, our livestock. Its mostly geared to livestock. Yes, i will look into that. I dont have the answer to that. In your opinion, are eld devices able to accurately distinguish between the times a truck may be running, but not yet on the road . For livestock haulers this would include time to the initial loading location, time spent waiting and time loading. In the future, would the federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration being willing to work with the livestock and insect industry to provide further exemptions or flexibility for them under the hour of Service Rules. Im not familiar with the subject. But i look forward to working with you and your constituents. Thank you, i do appreciate that. Chairman, under my time limits, so i yield back. You know i was very proud of how this committee always sticks to the timeline. Today we havent been doing that great. But its okay. Mrs. Clark . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Madam secretary, i would like to return to the maritime academies. We talked about their essential role in sea lift capacity, our National Security. But there have also been very troubling recent reports of Sexual Misconduct at the merchant marine academies that really allege a hostile culture for the female midshipmen. And these reports of unwanted sexual advances, harassment, and assault have caused the academy to suspend its sea year program. So i have two questions for you. How is your Department Going to handle these allegations . And also, how is your budget and your proposed expenditures going to insure the safety of female midshipmen during their sea year, when most of these incidents occur . Im obviously very concerned about these issues. As are my colleagues at the department of transportation. And at marad. We are investigating this. And the dollar amount that you specifically mentioned, its been increased from 380,000 for education, advocacy. Counseling. To almost 1 million now. But we are very concerned about this issue and obviously we need to do something about it. Because its as you mentioned, its connected to the acreditation issue. We have Inspector General several weeks ago, we were talking about this issue. Are you working closely with them . On this issue . Yes. And i say yes. Because he has the lead of course. Yeah. So we are kept apprised and he will give recommendations and we will see. But obviously were very concerned about it. And so if you have suggestions, wed love to work with you as well. All right. Well welcome that opportunity. Thank you. One minute back to you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I wont take representative clarks minute. Ill stick to my own. Madam secretary, as a member of the committee, one of our areas of responsibility is to make sure that these funds are invested wisely. And i know that you share our concern about that issue. And one of the ways that some agencies have sought to utilize technology is by using geospatial analysis and technology, fema has done this. Has utilized this technology. Do you think that it would be beneficial for the department of transportation to employ technology to apply more kind of realtime view of where we are with our transportation infrastructure system . With the projects that d. O. T. Is funding, where they are in the process . Whats getting complete . At what stage are those being completed . Do you think, would you be more open to looking at how we use technology in the department or in order to advance the priorities to make sure that the American Public similar to what was done with the steven list years ago in a tracking fashion that individuals can track what, what projects are being awarded, and where they are within the pipeline. Is there more that we can do thats very interesting. I dont know. I know you discussed i understand your concern. Thats an interesting concept. You discussed before your reluctance to support siphoning aside money. But one of the ways, one of the areas trance farrency it allows people to find out whats going on. One of the ways that congress has asked you to prioritize the budget, and the agency has accepted obviously, and theres funding within fy 17, as well as the fy 18 request is Transportation Planning and development. How we do a better job of managing those projects, a realtime analysis of how we invest those funds. Realtime analysis is key. I believe that the Transportation Department has a good handle on, on monitoring funds, how its being used. Whether the funds are being used for the purpose they were intended. Sure, absolutely. I think we have a good monitoring system. And after all, were grantmakers, we need to monitor distribution. So youre saying on realtime which is very interesting. Im not questioning we like to, id like to hear more about that. And maybe were doing that already. But thats a very interesting thought. And i think your ability to provide oversight is totally fine from the grant side. Im just saying yeah as you mentioned from a transparency perspective, is there more that we can do to show the American Public where the investments are occurring. Well if you have ideas, again, im were very open to discussing them with you. Sure i appreciate it, thank you so much. Thank you, sir. Let me recognize the vice chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. Joyce . Thank you, mr. Chairman. In trying to go through in the question i asked you about the mpos to begin with, and there was bill 496 that the president signed. That talked about the merger aspect. I was talking more about the expansion aspect of the mpos. I dont see it addressed in there. The fact that theyre going into neighborhoods and telling or dictating to communities how they should grow forward. Is that something that we can address with you offline as we move forward . Of course. Lets talk about that. Great. Thank you very much. Thanks madam secretary, let me first thank you and also your staff for your participation here this afternoon. The Committee Staff will in contact with your Budget Office regarding questions for the record. And well all have a number of questions that to be submitted and i would imagine that again all of us would do that. If you could please work with omb to return the information for the record, to the subcommittee wb 30 days from tomorrow. That way well be able to publish the transcripts of todays hearings and make obviously informed decisions when crafting the fiscal year 2018 bill. I would be remiss, madam secretary if i didnt say obviously youre a wellknown entity. For those of us that have been here and your reputation has always been one of obviously talent, but also responsiveness. And accessibility and i would just want to tell you that you have proven that thats been the case. You have been exceedingly responsive to our requests. You have been accessible. So just know that that does not remain unnoticed and we do appreciate your continued willingness to work with us. And i will tell you that i for one and all of us look forward it a very close working relationship. We have to work closely and i think all of us are thrilled that its you. Because not only because of your history but because you have demonstrated already in the short time that youve been there, that you remain as accessible and as responsive as anybody so thank you for your service, we look forward to continuing to work with you. Mr. Price, any Closing Remarks . No, thank you, mr. Chairman. I also thank you for your discussion here with us this morning. We will all have further questions that we want to explore for the record. But i join the chairman in gratitude for your appearance. And a desire to earnestly work on these, these transportation issues. Youre leading a department that is at the forefront of our countrys economic wellbeing. The quest for new and better jobs. And it has a history of relatively bipartisan cooperation and support. Both in the congress and in the various stakeholders that you work with. That will be very important Going Forward in divisive times, to find some way to, to invest in our countrys Transportation Future so thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member price, thank you so much for the opportunity. Want to reinforce again ive been in this department before. It has always been bipartisan. And thats the spirit with which i proceed and i look forward to working with all members of the committee. Thank you, madam secretary. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Announcer President Trump is in iowa this evening for a campaignstyle rally in cedar rapids. Its his first visit to the state since being sworn into office back in january. Well have live coverage of the event starting at 8 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan 2. This weekend on booktv on cspan 2, saturday from the Franklin Delano roosevelt president ial museum and library in hyde park, new york, the annual roosevelt reading festival, featuring presentations about president roosevelt. Authors include steve twomey, and his book countdown to pearl harbor. Geraldine hawkins and her book, elliott and eleanor roosevelt. Katherine smith and her book the gatekeeper. The untold story of the partnership that defined a presidency and Joseph Lelyveld and his book the final battle. And at 8 00 p. M. Eastern a conversation with bestselling author gay talese from his home in new york city. The books that i have had published in the last couple of years are, the same kind of odd characters written by an 84yearold, 85yearold guy that the 24, 25yearold guy was writing about when i was that age. Mr. Talese talks about his career over the past 60 years. His books include the kingdom and the power Honor Thy Father and unto the sons. I wanted to write about unknown people. The little woman who fed pigeons in the park or the little woman from the ukrainian who cleaned the offices of the Chrysler Building at 4 00 a. M. Or some doorman outside the plaza hotel and what he saw and what he didnt see. I wanted to write about sometimes what it was like to be a bus driver in manhattan or clean the subways at 4 00 a. M. Those obscure characters, but people to not, ordinary people do not recognize. I wanted to be a chronicler of those unrecognized, those untitled. For more of this weekends schedule go, to booktv. Org. Next, another hearing on the president s 2018 budget request. This one is with dr. Scott gottlieb, who heads the food and drug administration. He testifi