Part 3.What Public–Private Partnerships Are

Even with their ubiquity, there remains some ambiguity as to what exactly constitutes a PPP. For this article, however, we focus on a more specific, emerging form of PPP that gives the private sector a greater role in decision making and assumption of risk in the joint venture.

The private sector has long been involved in infrastructure projects, under arrangements by which the private sector, under contract, designs and builds facilities (or roads) and then turns them over to the government to operate and maintain. Our specific focus is on long-term partnerships involving the private delivery of public infrastructure services. Thus, Public–private partnerships are ongoing agreements between government and private sector organizations in which the private organization participates in the decision-making and production  of a public good or service that has traditionally been provided by the public sector and in which  the private sector shares the risk of that production.

Three critical conditions characterize this conception of these emerging PPPs:

  1. The relationship between the public and the private sector organization is long term, rather than a one-time relationship, such as might occur in a conventional contract for a good or service (such as office products or secretarial assistance).
  2. The private sector cooperates in both the decision making as to how best to provide a public good or service and the production and delivery of that good or service, which normally have been the domain of the public sector.
  3. The relationship involves a negotiated allocation of risk with the private sector instead of government bearing most of the risk.

These emerging forms of PPPs take a variety of forms that reflect varying degrees of private involvement, including design, build, and operate; build, own, operate, and transfer; and design, build, finance, and operate.

Next time we will explore important elements of successful conventional contracting including arm’s-length negotiations, transparency, clear specifications of the good or service being bought, and specific evaluation criteria.

Part 2. What Public–Private Partnerships Are and What They Are Not

What Public–Private Partnerships Are and What They Are Not

After years of underfinancing much-needed repairs and maintenance to America’s infrastructure—by as much as $2.2 trillion, according to some estimates—digging out of the current deficit will be costly. And with state and local governments facing tight budgets, it may be decades before the work will be affordable. The lack of resources for infrastructure improvement and maintenance extends beyond highways and affects a range of public capital investments, from levees to wastewater treatment and from transportation to schools. The dismal state of the nation’s current infrastructure could hamper future growth.

The ways that governments allocate new funding for infrastructure projects and the ways they build, operate, and maintain those projects has contributed to the problem. New spending often flows to less valuable new construction at the expense of funding maintenance on existing infrastructure.  Further hindering efficiency, the traditional process for building infrastructure decouples the initial investment—the actual building of a highway, for example—from the ongoing costs of maintaining that highway. As a result, the contractor building the highway often has little incentive to take steps to lower future operations and maintenance costs. Such inefficiencies likely contribute to falling rates of return on public capital investments. PPPs can be used for solid waste, transport (airports, bridges, ports, rail, roads, tunnels, and urban railways), tourism, and water.

The United States is a relative newcomer to PPPs. Public–private partnerships have existed worldwide at least since the time of the Roman Empire (e.g., the use of private tax and toll road collectors) and in the United States since its founding. During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress authorized the use of privateers to harass the British navy. Later, much of the West was developed through a variety of PPPs, including the cross-continental railway. The production of transportation infrastructure often has been undertaken with PPPs, from the development of private toll roads and canals during the nation’s early history up to the recent Dulles Greenway—a privately financed, built, and operated toll road in northern Virginia.

Even though there is an old nineteenth-century tradition of privately provided public infrastructure and even of private tolled roads and bridges,  the United States still depends almost exclusively on the government for its public transport infrastructure (with the important exception of railroads).The two-decade trend toward PPPs that has revitalized the ways that many countries provide infrastructure has gained only little traction  in the United States. Whereas the United Kingdom financed $50 billion in transportation infrastructure via PPPs between 1990 and 2006, the United States, an economy more than six times as large as that of the United Kingdom, financed only approximately $10 billion during the same period.

Even with their ubiquity, there remains some ambiguity as to what exactly constitutes a PPP. . . For future articles . . . we shall focus on a . . . form of PPP that involves a greater role by the private sector in decision making and assumption of risk in the joint venture.

Nuts and Bolts of New Jersey’s Proposed 10-year, $20B Infrastructure Funding

On Friday we reported that New Jersey State lawmakers announced a bi-partisan agreement to  raise enough revenue to support a decade-long, $20 billion Transportation Trust Fund, and said their plans should be coupled with  tax cuts.

Actually,  released minutes apart in afternoon press releases and just 20 days before the trust fund ends its five-year authorization and 20 months after the state’s now-former transportation commissioner began warning of an impending “crisis” that could doom the roads and bridges New Jerseyans rely on every day a second proposal was released..

Both plans call for increasing the state’s taxes on oil companies, known as the gross petroleum product receipts tax.

Still, it was made clear the proposals would mean higher prices on the roads: The concept offered by Democratic Sen. Paul Sarlo and Republican Sen. Steve Oroho includes an increase in the petroleum taxes that, if passed onto the consumer, would mean a 23-cent increase in the state’s gas tax, to 37.5 cents per gallon.

The two lawmakers, who won support for their proposal from Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald and other members of the lower house from across the state, argued the tax would still be lower than what is paid by motorists in New York and California. Oroho — the only Republican to support either measure — said it is also important to note that an estimated one-third of drivers who buy gas in New Jersey are from other states.

The other proposal, which comes from some senior Assembly Democrats, led by Speaker Vincent Prieto, is much more vague and does not say exactly how much the petroleum tax would need to be increased. It would likely be by a similar margin, given that both plans call for trust funds of the same size. The Assembly version, though, also calls for a “modernization” of how the state taxes jet fuel. Currently, jet fuel is taxed at 4 cents per gallon and only for quantities used during taxiing and takeoff.

Both of the plans announced Friday include similarly ambitious proposals for cutting taxes, notably by phasing out the estate tax, which generates some $600 million in annual revenue and is paid on inherited wealth worth more than $675,000. The Senate version would end the tax in just three years — two years faster than Sarlo and Oroho had previously called for. The Assembly measure would take four years.

Both proposals would boost the tax exemption threshold for retirement income and increase the earned income tax credit from 30 percent to 40 percent of the federal benefit.

The Assembly proposal does not include an income tax deduction for charitable contributions, one idea Republicans have been aggressively pursuing. The Sarlo and Oroho legislation would create a write-off for charitable contributions to specific organizations involved in social services. It would also allow a write-off for those who spend more than 1 percent of their income on the gas tax.

The lawmakers behind both proposals said it was critical that a new trust fund be authorized before the current one runs dry. They also said the status quo is unacceptable. After years of mismanagement, the trust fund is buried in debt and the current gas tax — not raised in more than two decades — can’t support any new construction.

Still, the plans are very similar, differing in just a few ways. There’s really only one notable difference when it comes to actual administration of the trust fund. The Prieto framework calls for doubling transportation aid to municipalities, from about $200 million to about $400 million per year. While Sarlo has previously said he wanted to do that, their plan makes no specific mention of increasing municipal aid.

Most advocates for infrastructure spending reacted positively to the proposals, saying both offer appear to offer realistic approaches to funding transportation projects for the next decade.

Two More States Edging Closer to Passing Transportation P3 Legislation

Bills making their way through state legislatures in Tennessee and Kentucky could allow governments in both states to begin developing transportation projects through public-private partnerships. Kentucky’s legislation would allow this procurement method to be used for other public projects as well.

Legislators in Nashville are considering SB 2093, which would authorize local and state governments to pursue P3s and give partners the power to seek loans, purchase rights of way and collect fees. The  bipartisan bill also permits developers to submit unsolicited proposals but includes a 90-day period during which other firms can submit competing proposals.

One project that could be built through a P3 is a $5.4 billion bus rapid transit line connecting Nashville and Clarksville, reported “The Tennessean”. Neither sources of funding nor proposed alternatives have been identified but legislation introduced last year that would allow the metropolitan transit system to charge customers a fuel tax to fund them will be considered this spring.

Kentucky is considering two identical bills that would permit state and local governments to use P3s develop capital projects, such as public roads, bridges and parks. Projects worth more than $25 million would require the General Assembly’s approval, reported CN׀2 Pure Politics.

HB 309 or SB 132 may stand a stronger chance of passing than a similar bill that then-Gov. Steve Beshear vetoed in 2014 because it called for the imposition of tolls to pay for the replacement of Brent Spence Bridge connecting Kentucky and Ohio. The new legislation explicitly prohibits the imposition of tolls on interstate highway projects between the two states.


Why the FAST Act Will Benefit Public-Private Partnership

Congress has passed, and the president has signed, a long-term surface transportation reauthorization bill, (America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), H.R. 22) providing approximately $305 billion of funding for highway and transit projects over the next five years and revising federal transportation policy on a number of important topics-including public-private partnership market.

The Highway Trust Fund

The Highway Trust Fund, supported largely through user fees by way of federal gas tax revenues, serves as the primary mechanism for states to fund road and transit construction and maintenance projects. The Highway Trust Fund has a growing gap between revenue and expenditures because the federal gas tax rate has not been raised since 1993 and is not indexed to inflation, while the cost of maintaining and improving U.S. surface transportation infrastructure continues to rise and increasingly fuel-efficient cars use fewer gallons of gas per mile traveled.

The FAST Act generally maintains the existing federal transportation funding model — distributing more than 90 percent of federal funding to state departments of transportation through formulas — while boosting highway spending by about 15 percent over existing levels, and increasing transit spending by about 18 percent. After dozens of recent short-term patches of the Highway Trust Fund through transfers from the general revenue fund, the FAST Act closes a five-year, roughly $70 billion gap through creative one-time budget mechanisms such as transfers from Federal Reserve accounts and the sale of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

While state departments of transportation have praised the predictability of the FAST Act, the modest increase in overall spending levels will not fully address the looming U.S. infrastructure backlog. For example, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that the U.S. needs to invest approximately $1.8 trillion in surface transportation projects by 2020 to maintain a state of good repair. Additionally, the FAST Act does not provide a long-term sustainable solution (such as a gas tax rise or a vehicle miles traveled fee) for fully funding the Highway Trust Fund beyond the act’s five-year term.

Public-Private Partnerships and Innovative Financing

Previously, states relied almost exclusively on Highway Trust Fund transfers, state gas tax revenue and municipal bonds to fund new projects, delivering such projects through a design-bid-build model whereby the state department of transportation developed design specifications then solicited the lowest bid for the construction of a project. In an effort to improve mobility and build new highway and transit capacity in a funding-constrained environment, U.S. states have increasingly turned to public-private partnership (P3) delivery models that include project risk transfer from states to private entities, efficient and integrated delivery of design, construction and maintenance project components, and an infusion of upfront private equity. U.S. states are also using more project-based revenue sources, such as user fees and tolls, and innovative federal finance tools such as the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) federal credit program and private activity bonds.

On balance, by providing a relatively stable but still under-funded federal revenue stream, the FAST Act is largely positive for the continued use of the P3 delivery model by U.S. states. The FAST Act will end much of the short-term funding uncertainty that caused states to postpone or cancel projects during prior weeks- or months-long Highway Trust Fund patches, but the lack of fully realized surface transportation funding will encourage states to continue to seek project delivery efficiencies and private funding sources through P3s.

Toll Policy

The FAST Act takes a mixed approach toward federal tolling policy. User fees, usually in the form of tolls for highway projects, are often essential elements of the funding and financing package for P3 projects. While federal law only allows tolling on interstate highways where additional lanes are constructed, the Interstate System Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Pilot Program allows three states to experiment with tolling existing interstate highways. Created in 1998, the pilot program has long been fully subscribed, but the three participating states (Virginia, Missouri and North Carolina) have not yet implemented any tolling of existing facilities under the program. While P3 and tolling proponents had urged Congress to expand the number of slots in the pilot program, the FAST Act instead encourages the existing participants to expedite their projects, requiring the three existing states to move forward with a tolling project within one year (with a potential one-year extension). If the participants fail to comply, their slot will expire and other states will be eligible. The FAST Act also requires new states to have legislative authority to implement the tolling of an existing facility, and any new participants must complete their projects within three years.

TIFIA Funding Levels and Policy Tweaks

The FAST Act reduces funding levels for the TIFIA program (utilized by many P3 projects) from $1 billion over the last two years to $275 million in FY 2016, rising to $300 million for FY 2019 and FY 2020. However, TIFIA had not made full use of its authorized funds in the last two years, causing $639 million in TIFIA funds to be transferred back to the Highway Trust Fund in 2015. The FAST Act eliminates the requirement that the TIFIA program transfer such uncommitted balances.

While the TIFIA funding cut is not ideal, it should not have an acutely adverse effect on P3 projects due to the lack of market support over the last two years for the $1 billion annual level and the steady increases in funding over the five-year life of the FAST Act. The FAST Act also allows states to use an increasing array of funding sources to pay the subsidy and administrative costs associated with TIFIA credit assistance, expands eligibility to include smaller projects and transit-oriented development projects, creates a streamlined process for TIFIA loans under $100 million, and increases funding levels for the U.S. Department of Transportation’s administration of the program. Additionally, the FAST Act codifies existing DOT practice by allowing costs related to P3 projects using an availability payment concession model to be eligible for federal reimbursement.


The FAST Act fixes a widely criticized element of the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program introduced in 2014 by eliminating a prohibition on financing water infrastructure improvements with financing packages that include both WIFIA loans and tax-exempt debt such as municipal bonds.

Innovative Finance Bureau and Investment Center

The FAST Act also establishes a National Surface Transportation and Innovative Finance Bureau within the DOT, which is intended to serve as a “one-stop-shop” for states and local governments to receive federal financing or funding assistance, as well as technical assistance. The nascent Build America Transportation Investment Center introduced this year by the Obama administration appears to have an overlapping mandate, and it remains to be seen how these two entities will interact. While the bureau and center may not provide enormous benefits for state departments of transportation with extensive P3 experience, their existence reflects a general positive attitude of Congress and the administration toward P3s and innovative finance.

Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program

The FAST Act creates a new grant program, the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program, funded at $4.5 billion over five years, for “nationally significant” projects costing more than $100 million that improve the movement of both freight and people, increase competitiveness, reduce bottlenecks, and improve intermodal tansportation. The DOT will award projects competitively based on statutory criteria, similar to the popular existing “TIGER” competitive grant program administered by the DOT. The FAST Act limits the federal share of project costs to 60 percent, and only $500 million of the $4.5 billion can be awarded to freight rail and freight intermodal projects.

Long-Distance Intercity Passenger Rail Routes

In addition to the highway and transit provisions, the FAST Act contains a passenger rail title that reauthorizes and funds Amtrak intercity passenger rail operations for a five-year period. Included among the passenger rail policy prescriptions is a new pilot program that would allow a public entity (such as a state or a joint powers authority) or a private rail carrier to bid to operate up to three long-distance (more than 750 miles) passenger rail routes that are currently run by Amtrak. While Amtrak turns a profit on its heavily used Northeast Corridor service, many of Amtrak’s long-distance routes are unprofitable.

NJ Gov. Chris Christie has conditionally vetoed P3 Infrastructure Bill

Martin J. Milita Jr. Esq., senior director at Duane Morris Government Strategies, offers: ”NJ Gov.  Chris Christie has conditionally veto P3 Infrastructure Bill”.

Duane Morris Government Strategies (DMGS) supports the growth of organizations, companies, communities and economies through a suite of government and business consulting services. The firm offers a range of government relations and public affairs services, including lobbying, grant writing; development finance consulting, media relations management, grassroots campaigning and community outreach. Milita works at the firm’s Trenton and Newark New Jersey offices.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has conditionally vetoed a Senate bill that would expand public-private partnership opportunities for government entities, calling for the removal of provisions mandating prevailing wage requirements and project labor agreements.

These modifications to S2489 would further competitive bidding for projects and reduce costs, Christie said Monday in a veto message that also recommended that the departments of Transportation, Education and Community Affairs take leading roles in building and transportation projects.

The legislation sponsored by Senate President Stephen R. Sweeney , that  cleared the Senate in July, permits Local and state government units and school districts as well to enter into the partnerships, in which the private entity assumes administrative and partial or full financial responsibility for a project, according to the bill.

“While I agree with the sponsors that we must take advantage of the opportunity to improve our infrastructure through private investment, we must take care to ensure that the state has a unified plan of development that considers the impact of projects on our residents, the economic benefits of such projects, and the long term goals of the state,” Christie said in the message, which specified municipal projects and transportation work on bridges, roads and tunnels.

The departments Christie highlighted Monday in his veto message would work alongside the Economic Development Authority, which under the bill would review and approve applications and to cancel procurement after a short list of private entities is developed for projects in the public interest.

Presently only state and county colleges can enter the partnerships, according to state law. Christie cited the successes of such partnerships in Montclair State University and said others were planned or underway at Rutgers University, Ramapo College and the College of New Jersey.

The Assembly State and Local Government Committee had amended the original version of  the bill to allow the use of availability payments as a financing method, to specify that a contractor is precluded from taking on projects under $50 million if the contractor contributed more than 10 percent of the project’s financing, and to eliminate the $10 million project threshold and instead require that roadway or highway projects must include an expenditure of at least $10 million in public funds or any expenditure in private funds.

Other amendments make certain lease provisions permissive rather than mandatory, exempt private entities from procurement and contracting requirements applicable to the public entities, and exempt nonprofit projects from property taxation and assessments.

The committee prohibited the bundling of multiple projects and eschewed the requirement that a government entity assign a management employee to enforce the prevailing wage requirement. They added requirements of EDA approval prior to commencing procurement of the project; that the private entity establish a construction account to fully capitalize and fund the project; and that the general contractor, construction manager or design-build team would post performance and payment bonds, rather than the chief financial officer of the public entity.

Tax breaks would apply to nonprofits, and private entities are exempt from certain procurement and contract requirements that apply to public entities, according to the legislation.

The bill was introduced in the Senate in October and then reviewed by the State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee.

Martin J. Milita, Jr., Esq. Senior Director

Visit his blog at:

Follow him on twitter: @MartinMilita1

This Week In Congress: Highways & Education

Last week the Armed Services Committee held a confirmation hearing for Marine Corps General Joe Dunford to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The hearing went well, and the committee could seek to consider and report the nomination this week, although no markup is currently scheduled. If General Dunford is reported by the committee, prompt action by the full Senate is possible, though a confirmation vote is more likely next week.

This week, the House returns on Monday and will tackle six bills under suspension of the rules, primarily from the Small Business Committee.

On Tuesday, the House deals with 14 suspension bills, all of them having been reported by the Financial Services Committee. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will tackle H.R. 2898, the Western Water and American Food Security Act of 2015, introduced by Rep. David Valadao, R-Calif. The bill provides a response to the drought afflicting the West, especially California, source of much of the country’s food. Of interest to note is the absence on the agenda of the patent-litigation reform bill, H.R. 9. That bill had been included for action this week in Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s planned floor schedule for the month. While a similar bill passed last Congress with 325 votes, the failure to consider the bill as scheduled this week may portend underlying issues with the bill, or it may be due to something as simple as a delay in getting a score from the Congressional Budget Office. Nonetheless, its absence from this week’s schedule is worthy of note.

The Senate resumes consideration on Monday of S. 1177, the Every Child Achieves Act, the bipartisan bill developed by the Education Committee chairman, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and the committee’s ranking member, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as No Child Left Behind. Last week, the chamber worked its way through amendments to the bill. The chamber’s work on this legislation reflects another instance of Leader Mitch McConnell’s effort to restore regular order to the workings of the body, after several years of dysfunction. This week, the Senate is expected to complete its consideration of the bill. Last week, the House passed its version of the bill to reauthorize the ESEA. Senate passage will allow both chambers to begin the process of reconciling the two bills, which are quite different.

Upon completion of the Every Child Achieves Act, the majority leader has signaled his intention to turn to consideration of the highway bill. The current program, operating under a short-term extension passed earlier in the spring, expires at the end of July and must be renewed. Congress will not go into its August recess, the height of road-building and repair season, without extending the program. As has been the case for many years now, the challenge is figuring out how to pay for the infrastructure programs included in the highway bill. Proposals to raise the gas tax have not won support from Republican leaders in either chamber. The leading proposal has been to use receipts from the repatriation of earnings being held overseas by American companies due to the noncompetitively high U.S. corporate tax rate. This repatriation option has numerous proponents, but many senators want to reserve the funds from a repatriation for broader tax reform. In the face of this stalemate, Leader McConnell has again expressed his expectation that the Senate will have to adopt another short-term renewal, to be paid for from general receipts. Although Democrats have resisted another short-term extension, they are likely to have few viable alternatives.

As has been widely discussed for weeks, the highway bill, which is must-pass legislation, is the likely vehicle for consideration of the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, which technically expired at the end of June. In a test vote last month, more than 60 senators voted in favor of extending the bank’s charter. Inclusion of the bank’s reauthorization will make a short-term highway bill more palatable to Democrats in both chambers.

This week committees on both sides of the capitol will hold a number of high-profile hearings. On Tuesday, the House Foreign Affairs Committee has scheduled a hearing on the Iran Nuclear Agreement, which was supposed to have been achieved by last week but, as of this writing, remains under negotiation. Also on Tuesday, a Foreign Affairs Subcommittee will hold a hearing on the EU Outlook, a topic garnering unusual attention in light of the Greek debt crisis and the potential for Greece to default and be forced out of the Euro. Staying with the Foreign Affairs Committee, two of its subcommittees will hold a hearing on Thursday on U.S.-China Nuclear Cooperation.

Federal Reserve Board Chairwoman Janet Yellen provides her semi-annual testimony to the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday and to the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday. Senate Banking also holds an oversight hearing on Wednesday with Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray.

Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson appears before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. On Wednesday, that committee will hear from Howard Shelanski, the director of the little-known but singularly powerful White House Office of Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which oversees the federal government’s regulatory apparatus. The OIRA director also appears before the Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Thursday.

Other hearings of note this week include a two-part hearing on criminal justice reform in the House Oversight Committee, a hearing on radicalization in the House Homeland Security Committee, a hearing on welfare reform in the House Ways and Means Committee, a hearing on the Export-Import Bank in the House Oversight Committee, and a hearing of a Senate Commerce subcommittee on Wednesday looking into international soccer issues, in the wake of the recent indictment of FIFA officials.

On committee’s markup agendas, the House Appropriations Committee will mark up the Homeland Security appropriations bill on Tuesday. The bill contains language that would block any funds from implementing President Obama’s November 2014 executive actions, currently enjoined by the courts, to postpone indefinitely the deportation of immigrants in the country illegally. On Wednesday, the Senate Commerce Committee will mark up the highway-safety portion of the highway bill just as the bill is likely to come to the floor.

A list of scheduled committee hearings is included below.

—By Martin J. Milita, Jr., Esq. Senior Director

Visit his blog at:

Follow him on twitter: @MartinMilita1

Please feel free to contact the author or your other Duane Morris Government Strategies LLC contact to learn more about this article and what it may mean to you.

About Duane Morris Government Strategies, LLC (DMGS):

Comprised of 19 experienced professionals representing U.S. and foreign clients at the federal, state and local levels, DMGS is as an ancillary business of international law firm Duane Morris LLP, one of the 100 largest law firms with more than 700 attorneys in the U.S. as well as in the UK and Asia. The firm operates in eight offices including Newark, NJ; Trenton, NJ; Albany, NY; Harrisburg, PA; Philadelphia, PA; Pittsburgh, PA; Columbus, OH; and Washington, DC.

DMGS offers a full range of government relations and public affairs services, including lobbying, grant identification/writing/administration, development finance consulting, procurement, grassroots campaigning, public relations, and crisis planning/crisis management needs.


Monday, July 13, 2015

Senate Committees

Traffic Congestion and Commerce Issues

Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship

Full Committee Field Hearing

July 13, 3:30 p.m., Livingston Parish Council Chamber, 20355 Government Blvd., Livingston, La.

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

House Committees

Fiscal 2016 Appropriations: Homeland Security

House Appropriations

Full Committee Markup

10:15 a.m., 2359 Rayburn Bldg.

Broadband Infrastructure Investment

House Energy and Commerce – Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

Subcommittee Hearing

10 a.m., 2322 Rayburn Bldg.

Pipeline Safety

House Energy and Commerce – Subcommittee on Energy and Power

Subcommittee Hearing

10:15 a.m., 2123 Rayburn Bldg.

Federal Reserve Oversight

House Financial Services – Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

Subcommittee Hearing

10 a.m., 2128 Rayburn Bldg.

Iran Nuclear Agreement

House Foreign Affairs

Full Committee Hearing

10 a.m., 2172 Rayburn Bldg.

Maritime Border Security

House Homeland Security – Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security

Subcommittee Hearing

10 a.m., 311 Cannon Bldg.

DHS Oversight

House Judiciary

Full Committee Oversight Hearing

10 a.m., 2141 Rayburn Bldg.

Seismic Surveying in Outer Continental Shelf

House Natural Resources – Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

Subcommittee Oversight Hearing

10 a.m., 1324 Longworth Bldg.

Federal Land Management Bills

House Natural Resources – Subcommittee on Federal Lands

Subcommittee Hearing

10:30 a.m., 1334 Longworth Bldg.

Criminal Justice Reforms

House Oversight and Government Reform

Full Committee Hearing

9:45 a.m., 2154 Rayburn Bldg.

Commercial Weather Data

House Science, Space and Technology – Subcommittee on Environment

Subcommittee Hearing

10 a.m., 2318 Rayburn Bldg.

Health Care Measures

House Veterans’ Affairs – Subcommittee on Health

Subcommittee Hearing

10 a.m., 334 Cannon Bldg.

Medicare Prescription Drug Program

House Energy and Commerce – Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

Subcommittee Hearing

2 p.m., 2322 Rayburn Bldg.

Tunisia Political Assessment

House Foreign Affairs – Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa

Subcommittee Hearing

2 p.m., 2172 Rayburn Bldg.

European Union Outlook

House Foreign Affairs – Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats

Subcommittee Hearing

2 p.m., 2200 Rayburn Bldg.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

House Homeland Security – Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies; House Homeland Security – Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response and Communications

Subcommittees Joint Hearing

2 p.m., 311 Cannon Bldg.

Senate Committees

Armed Services Nominations

Senate Armed Services

Full Committee Confirmation Hearing

9:30 a.m., G50 Dirksen Bldg.

Disease Research

Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation – Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness

Subcommittee Hearing

10 a.m., 253 Russell Bldg.

Islanded Energy Systems

Senate Energy and Natural Resources

Full Committee Hearing

10 a.m., 366 Dirksen Bldg.

Intelligence Briefing

Senate Select Intelligence

Full Committee Closed Briefing

2:30 p.m., 219 Hart Bldg.

Small Business Energy Development and Manufacturing

Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship

Full Committee Hearing

2:30 p.m., 428A Russell Bldg.

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

House Committees

Land Grant Universities

House Agriculture

Full Committee Hearing

10 a.m., 1300 Longworth Bldg.

Monetary Policy and Economic Assessment

House Financial Services

Full Committee Hearing

10 a.m., HVC-210 Capitol Visitor Center

U.S. Counterterrorism Assessment

House Homeland Security

Full Committee Hearing

10 a.m., 311 Cannon Bldg.

Fracking on Federal Lands

House Natural Resources – Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

Subcommittee Oversight Hearing

10 a.m., 1324 Longworth Bldg.

Criminal Justice Reforms

House Oversight and Government Reform

Full Committee Hearing

10 a.m., 2154 Rayburn Bldg.

National Weather Service Misconduct Allegations

House Science, Space and Technology

Full Committee Hearing

10 a.m., 2318 Rayburn Bldg.

Small Businesses’ Drone Use

House Small Business

Full Committee Hearing

11 a.m., 2360 Rayburn Bldg.

VA Employee Disciplinary Issues

House Veterans’ Affairs

Full Committee Markup

10 a.m., 334 Cannon Bldg.

VA Unemployability Benefits

House Veterans’ Affairs

Full Committee Hearing

10:30 a.m., 334 Cannon Bldg.

TANF Renewal and Welfare Proposals

House Ways and Means – Subcommittee on Human Resources

Subcommittee Hearing

10:30 a.m., 1100 Longworth Bldg.

SNAP Strategies

House Agriculture – Subcommittee on Nutrition

Subcommittee Hearing

1:30 p.m., 1300 Longworth Bldg.

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

House Judiciary – Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law

Subcommittee Oversight Hearing

3 p.m., 2141 Rayburn Bldg.

Tribal Land and Economic Development

House Natural Resources – Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs

Subcommittee Hearing

2 p.m., 1324 Longworth Bldg.

Interior Department Cybersecurity

House Oversight and Government Reform – Subcommittee on Information Technology; House Oversight and Government Reform – Subcommittee on the Interior

Committee Joint Hearing

2 p.m., 2154 Rayburn Bldg.

Senate Committees

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Report

Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs

Full Committee Hearing

10 a.m., 538 Dirksen Bldg.

Transportation and Consumer Protection Measure

Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation

Full Committee Markup

10 a.m., 253 Russell Bldg.

Maritime Border Security

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Full Committee Hearing

10 a.m., 342 Dirksen Bldg.

International Soccer Overview

Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation – Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance and Data Security

Subcommittee Hearing

2:30 p.m., 253 Russell Bldg.

Indian Country Juvenile Justice

Senate Indian Affairs

Full Committee Oversight Hearing

2:15 p.m., 628 Dirksen Bldg.

Diabetes Research

Senate Special Aging

Full Committee Hearing

2:15 p.m., G-50 Dirksen Bldg.

Thursday, July 16, 2015

House Committees

U.S.-China Nuclear Cooperation

House Foreign Affairs – Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific; House Foreign Affairs – Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade

Subcommittees Joint Hearing

9 a.m., 2172 Rayburn Bldg.

Federal Air Marshal Assessment

House Homeland Security – Subcommittee on Transportation Security

Subcommittee Hearing

10 a.m., 311 Cannon Bldg.

Senate Committees

Monetary Policy Report

Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs

Full Committee Hearing

2:30 p.m., 538 Dirksen Bldg.

Wildlife Poaching

Senate Foreign Relations – Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy

Subcommittee Hearing

2 p.m., 419 Dirksen Bldg.

Forest and Timber Issues

Senate Energy and Natural Resources – Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining

Subcommittee Hearing

2:45 p.m., 366 Dirksen Bldg.

Regulatory Process

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs – Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management

Subcommittee Hearing

2 p.m., 342 Dirksen Bldg.

Intelligence Briefing

Senate Select Intelligence

Full Committee Closed Briefing