[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                  THE ADMINISTRATION'S PRIORITIES FOR 
                     TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

=======================================================================

                                (117-10)

                             REMOTE HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                   TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 25, 2021

                               __________

                       Printed for the use of the
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
             
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]             


     Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
     transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
                             transportation
                             
                              __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
48-042 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                              
 
             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

  PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
DON YOUNG, Alaska                      District of Columbia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      RICK LARSEN, Washington
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois               JOHN GARAMENDI, California
JOHN KATKO, New York                 HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   Georgia
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana             ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         DINA TITUS, Nevada
MIKE BOST, Illinois                  SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           JARED HUFFMAN, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California             JULIA BROWNLEY, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas            FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida               DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin            ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania   MARK DeSAULNIER, California
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,            STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
  Puerto Rico                        SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota              TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              GREG STANTON, Arizona
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota          COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Vice Chair
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi           JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
NANCY MACE, South Carolina           CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York         CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas                SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida           JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
MICHELLE STEEL, California           CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
                                     KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
                                     MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
                                     NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
                                     MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
                                     Vacancy

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

Summary of Subject Matter........................................     v

                 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure:
    Opening statement............................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     4
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure:
    Opening statement............................................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     6

                                WITNESS

Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department 
  of Transportation:
    Oral statement...............................................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     8

                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Statement of Jonathan Nez, President, Navajo Nation, Submitted 
  for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................    97
Statement of Nicholas Guida, Chairman and Chief Executive 
  Officer, Tamarack Aerospace Group Corporation, Submitted for 
  the Record by Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri......................   102
Statement of Amy Cohen, Cofounder, Families for Safe Streets, 
  Submitted for the Record by Hon. John Garamendi................   105

                                APPENDIX

Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, 
  U.S. Department of Transportation, from:
    Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................   109
    Hon. Sam Graves..............................................   109
    Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton...................................   114
    Hon. Rodney Davis............................................   115
    Hon. Steve Cohen.............................................   116
    Hon. John Katko..............................................   118
    Hon. John Garamendi..........................................   119
    Hon. Doug LaMalfa............................................   122
    Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr...........................   122
    Hon. Mike Gallagher..........................................   124
    Hon. Andre Carson............................................   128
    Hon. Tim Burchett............................................   129
    Hon. Jared Huffman...........................................   130
    Hon. Michael Guest...........................................   132
    Hon. Frederica S. Wilson.....................................   132
    Hon. Mark DeSaulnier.........................................   136
    Hon. Salud O. Carbajal.......................................   136
    Hon. Greg Stanton............................................   137
    Hon. Sharice Davids..........................................   140
    Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia................................   141
    Hon. Jake Auchincloss........................................   143
    Hon. Carolyn Bourdeaux.......................................   144

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                             March 22, 2021

    SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

    TO:      LMembers, Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure
    FROM:  LStaff, Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure
    RE:      LFull Committee Hearing on ``The Administration's 
Priorities for Transportation Infrastructure''
_______________________________________________________________________


                                PURPOSE

    The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will 
meet on Thursday, March 25, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. EDT in 2167 
Rayburn House Office Building and via Cisco Webex to hold a 
hearing titled ``The Administration's Priorities for 
Transportation Infrastructure.'' The hearing will provide an 
opportunity for Members of the Committee to probe the 
Administration's priorities for infrastructure investment, 
transportation policy, surface transportation authorization, 
and other matters. The Committee will hear testimony from the 
United States Department of Transportation (DOT).

                               BACKGROUND

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

    The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
authorizes programs carried out by the following DOT modal 
administrations and offices:
     LFederal Aviation Administration (FAA)
     LFederal Highway Administration (FHWA)
     LFederal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
(FMCSA)
     LNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA)
     LFederal Transit Administration (FTA)
     LFederal Railroad Administration (FRA)
     LMaritime Administration (MARAD)
     LPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration (PHMSA)
     LGreat Lakes Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
Corporation (GLS)
     LOffice of the Secretary (OST)

    On December 15, 2020, President Biden nominated Pete 
Buttigieg to be Secretary of Transportation. The Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a 
confirmation hearing on the nomination on January 21, 2021. The 
Senate confirmed Secretary Buttigieg on February 2, 2021, by a 
vote of 86-13.

INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT NEEDS

    America's infrastructure network is essential for quality 
of life, for supporting the economy, and for creating family-
supporting jobs. In order to retain the benefits of our 
transportation infrastructure network, investment must keep up 
with needs. The current costs of our infrastructure needs are 
staggering. According to the American Society of Civil 
Engineers (ASCE), the country's total infrastructure needs over 
the next 10 years total nearly $6 trillion, and the funding gap 
to meet those needs is $2.59 trillion.\1\ ASCE graded the 
nation's infrastructure as a ``C-.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), ``Infrastructure 
Report Card,'' 2021. https://infrastructurereportcard.org/. Accessed 
March 16, 2021.
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the coming decades, the nation's infrastructure will 
continue to face significant strain. America's population is 
expected to grow to more than 400 million by 2060.\3\ Freight 
movements are expected to increase 40 percent by 2045.\4\ At 
the same time, much of our infrastructure needs to be 
modernized and upgraded to meet current and future needs; to 
account for the needs of all impacted communities; to take 
advantage of new technologies and innovative mobility solutions 
to move people and goods more safely, efficiently, and 
equitably; to reduce carbon pollution; and to build stronger, 
more resilient, and adaptive transportation networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ U.S. Census Bureau, ``Demographic Turning Points for the United 
States: Population Projections for 2020 to 2060,'' February 2020.
    \4\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics, ``DOT Releases 30-Year Freight Projections,'' 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION

    The authorization for highway, transit, rail, and safety 
programs expires on September 30, 2021. The Committee is 
working to enact a multi-year surface authorization bill in 
advance of this deadline.
    Last Congress, on July 1, 2020, the House of 
Representatives passed, by a vote of 233-188, H.R. 2, the 
Moving Forward Act, which would reauthorize surface 
transportation programs through September 30, 2025. The Senate 
did not take up H.R. 2.
    Since 1995, multi-year surface transportation authorization 
bills enacted by Congress include: the Transportation Equity 
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (P.L. 105-178) enacted in 
1998, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59) 
enacted in 2005, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century Act (MAP-21) (P.L. 112-141) enacted in 2012, and the 
Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) (P.L. 
114-94), enacted in 2015. On October 1, 2020, the Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act (P.L. 116-
159) was enacted, which included a one-year extension of the 
FAST Act.

AVIATION PROGRAMS

    While current FAA and DOT aviation programs are not set to 
expire until October 1, 2023, Secretary Buttigieg will need to 
monitor the implementation of significant aviation legislation 
enacted in recent years, ensuring legislative mandates are 
implemented expeditiously and in accordance with Congressional 
intent.
    First, on October 5, 2018, President Trump signed into law 
the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-254), a five-year 
reauthorization of FAA and DOT aviation programs. The FAA 
Reauthorization Act of 2018 contains more than 400 mandates for 
the FAA and the DOT to issue regulations, prepare reports to 
Congress, and conduct studies in the fields of aviation safety, 
airport infrastructure, agency management, and aviation 
consumer protections. The FAA has yet to fully implement 
several key provisions included in the 2018 law, including 
mandates that the FAA: require flight attendants receive a 
minimum of 10 hours' rest between flight duty periods; require 
the installation of a secondary cockpit barrier on each new 
aircraft that is manufactured for delivery to a passenger air 
carrier; complete a call to action on airline engine safety and 
report to Congress on the results; and disburse aviation 
workforce program grants to develop the next generation of U.S. 
aviation workers.
    Second, on December 27, 2020, following the conclusion of 
multiple reviews and investigations into the FAA's 
certification of the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, which crashed 
twice in five months, killing 346 people, Congress enacted 
comprehensive aviation certification legislation--the Aircraft 
Certification, Safety, and Accountability Act--as part of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Div. V, P.L. 116-260). 
The Act reforms and strengthens the FAA's aircraft 
certification process; ensures transparency, accountability, 
and integrity in FAA regulation of U.S. aircraft manufacturers; 
addresses issues identified in various reviews and 
investigations related to human factors, automation in the 
cockpit, and international pilot training; and authorizes 
nearly $275 million over five years in robust FAA oversight and 
aviation safety-improving programs and initiatives. The FAA is 
in the very early stages of implementing this critical aviation 
safety law.

                              WITNESS LIST

     LThe Honorable Pete Buttigieg, Secretary, United 
States Department of Transportation

 
   THE ADMINISTRATION'S PRIORITIES FOR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                            Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:01 a.m., in room 
2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Cisco Webex, Hon. 
Peter A. DeFazio (Chair of the committee) presiding.
    Present in person: Mr. DeFazio and Ms. Norton.
    Present remotely: Ms. Johnson of Texas, Mr. Larsen, Mrs. 
Napolitano, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Sires, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Johnson of 
Georgia, Mr. Carson, Ms. Titus, Mr. Maloney, Mr. Huffman, Ms. 
Brownley, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Payne, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. 
DeSaulnier, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Brown, Mr. Malinowski, Mr. 
Stanton, Ms. Davids, Mr. Garcia of Illinois, Mr. Delgado, Mr. 
Pappas, Mr. Lamb, Mr. Moulton, Mr. Auchincloss, Ms. Bourdeaux, 
Mr. Kahele, Ms. Strickland, Ms. Williams of Georgia, Ms. 
Newman, Mr. Graves of Missouri, Mr. Young, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. 
Webster, Mr. Massie, Mr. Perry, Mr. Rodney Davis, Mr. Katko, 
Dr. Babin, Mr. Graves of Louisiana, Mr. Rouzer, Mr. Bost, Mr. 
Weber, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Mast, Mr. Gallagher, Mr. Fitzpatrick, 
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, Mr. Balderson, Mr. Burchett, Mr. Johnson 
of South Dakota, Dr. Van Drew, Mr. Guest, Mr. Nehls, Ms. Mace, 
Ms. Malliotakis, Ms. Van Duyne, and Mrs. Steel.
    Mr. DeFazio. I call the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure to order. I ask unanimous consent that the chair 
be authorized to declare a recess at any time during today's 
hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
    It is the responsibility of each Member seeking recognition 
to unmute their microphone prior to speaking. Keep your 
microphone muted, please, when not speaking, to avoid 
inadvertent background noise. And as you know, I will be 
thumping on the gavel if you do. If you have technical 
problems, let me know. And you know how to insert a document 
into the record.
    So we had hoped that we would kick off this year with the 
Secretary, but given the length of time for confirmation and 
all that, the committee couldn't wait. But I am pleased that 
the Secretary is here today. I think it is his first 
substantive appearance before Congress absent his Senate 
interrogation. We are here today to talk about a 21st-century 
infrastructure plan, Rebuilding the Nation's--hello. Someone is 
not muted. Mute. Are you going to get it together now? It is 
not too hard. We have done this enough times. You ought to be 
able to figure it out.
    In any case, there is obviously very broad agreement that 
the American public needs and wants--American business and 
individuals--the Nation's crumbling infrastructure to be 
rebuilt. They are tired of potholes, they are tired of detours, 
failed bridges, congestion, and all the problems. They are 
tired of water mains that blow up, and sewer systems that back 
up into their homes. We can do this. We did it in a great way 
in the middle to the later part of the last century, and 
America can do it again. But we are going to rebuild it in a 
way that is going to be resilient to severe weather events, be 
resilient--will you please mute your microphones. It is not too 
hard. I think maybe there is a way we can just shut you down.
    OK. We are going to rebuild it in a way that is resilient 
to climate change. That means extreme weather events, sea level 
rise. We are also going to build resilient to other threats, 
earthquakes in the West, in particular, even now, fires. But 
the bill, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, 
is about $2.6 trillion over 10 years. Last year, we passed a 
bill out of this committee that was $500 billion, give or take, 
and given the magnitude of the problem, it is a good start, but 
there were those who said that was too much. It isn't too much. 
And I will look forward to hearing in the near future, 
hopefully from the Biden administration, on what sort of 
numbers they want to set.
    We are going to have the most robust Buy America standards 
in the entire Government. Actually, transportation already is 
the most robust, but we are going to plug the final loopholes. 
We are going to get rid of the predatory Chinese rail company, 
and the bus company, which is substantially subsidized by the 
Communist government of China. The rail company is wholly owned 
by the Communist government of China.
    We are going to move. We are not going to do Eisenhower 
8.0. The Eisenhower plan was great for its time. It knitted the 
country together. We have got to rebuild that, but we also have 
to have an eye on the 21st century and the challenges of the 
21st century as we rebuild it.
    So, the bill we passed last year is a starting point, in my 
opinion, for this year's legislation. It was transformational. 
It focused on investing in outcomes that are possible under a 
new vision. We had testimony just last week from the Virginia 
DOT, which is dealing with severe congestion. And they said, 
well, we could do two more lanes on I-395, and in 10 years, it 
would be just as congested as it is today. That costs about $12 
billion; or we can provide a very viable, frequent, convenient 
rail option, which is expensive--it is going to be close to $5 
or $6 billion. So it's half the cost, a solution that gets 
people out of traffic, a solution that mitigates fossil fuel 
pollution--that is the kind of thing we want DOTs to start 
looking at, not just the same old tired solutions. You can't 
add infinitely more lane-miles in many areas of this country, 
and that is not what this is going to be about.
    We are going to make it safer, more equitable, cleaner, 
with less carbon pollution. We are going to have well-trained, 
well-paid workers. And we are going to reach out to many people 
that have been left behind and offer them training 
opportunities, partnering both in our bill but with other 
committees. We are going to deal with underserved communities 
whose voices have not been heard and needs have frequently not 
been met, and we are going to try and undo some of the damage 
of the past that targeted those communities.
    We are going to have transportation systems planned around 
what matters to people--that is, greater and easier access to 
jobs and essential services, more efficient mobility utilizing 
innovation, safe, resilient, in good repair.
    These are not aspirational. These are all achievable, and, 
Mr. Secretary, I know you share my commitment to this vision. I 
believe that many of these things are incorporated in the 
Building Back Better plan, and also the plan you yourself 
offered as a Presidential candidate. We are going to provide 
greater local decisionmaking.
    As a mayor, you know that often people at the local level, 
Members of Congress, mayors, and others, know better than the 
bureaucrats in the State capital, or, no offense, or the people 
in the Washington, DC, Secretary's Office at the Department of 
Transportation.
    We are going to look to address those concerns better in 
this bill. As I said, Members are going to have a transparent 
and equitable process to do direct investments in their 
community. And, then, there are other issues, certainly beyond 
surface transportation, wastewater, harbors, everything under 
our jurisdiction, under your jurisdiction, and aviation. 
Aviation always seems to be kind of a work in progress.
    Last Congress, we had a great bipartisan bill that re-
regulated the way that we certify aircraft in response to the 
tragedies with the Boeing MAX, and I am going to be tracking 
closely and want to see that certification implemented as 
comprehensively and as quickly as possible.
    We also have issues pending from the FAA bill, the last FAA 
bill which was about 3 years ago now, and I think I was told--
in fact, I know I was told that this month we would hear about 
secondary barriers on aircraft and, of course, the long, 
languishing, delayed rule on flight attendant duty rest time.
    And then, finally, the Obama administration, with misplaced 
priorities, certified something called Norwegian Air 
International. It was actually a scam. It had nothing to do 
with Norway except the investment, because they were 
incorporating in Ireland so they could get around labor laws. 
They could hire contract crew from Asia to fly the planes, and 
avoid the stricter labor laws of Norway.
    And, now, I understand that it went bankrupt, thankfully, 
but now they are attempting to come back as something called 
Norse Atlantic, and I would hope that your Department will 
thoroughly study that application. And I believe that it will 
be found not to meet the requirements of fair skies and labor 
agreements, and it should not be authorized.
    So with that, Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us 
today. We are eager to hear from you how best we can work 
together with you, President Biden, and Vice President Harris 
on our shared goals and moving America forward.
    [Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
   Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in 
      Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure
    Today, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee kicks into 
high gear our work to advance surface transportation authorization and 
infrastructure investment. We had planned to host the Secretary for our 
first hearing of the 117th Congress--because getting this monumental 
effort across the finish line is this Committee's top legislative 
priority.
    We have no time to waste. The American people--who rely on our 
roads, bridges, bike lanes, transit systems, railroads, airports, and 
waterways for their mobility and for their livelihoods--cannot wait. 
Infrastructure is integral to the functioning of our economy and 
investing heavily in it at this moment in time is key to our nation's 
recovery.
    We know our infrastructure needs are massive: the American Society 
of Civil Engineers' (ASCE) latest report documents an investment gap of 
$2.6 trillion over the next 10 years to fix what we have, meet future 
needs, and restore America's competitiveness. We know the question is 
not whether we need to invest, but what consequences we'll suffer for 
every day of delay as the risk of failure of our aging and fragile 
assets increases.
    We know the dramatic impact that federal transportation and 
infrastructure investments have in creating and sustaining good family-
wage jobs that can't be outsourced. And how these investments support 
American manufacturing through the robust Buy America standards in the 
programs this Committee authorizes.
    And we know that in this pivotal time, it's not just how much we 
invest, but how we invest these funds that will determine whether an 
infrastructure bill moves our nation in the right direction. It is time 
to reimagine how we plan and build transportation projects, and put our 
money behind achieving a new vision. As I've said many times, we have 
to move beyond Eisenhower 7.0.
    That is why, last Congress, this Committee advanced H.R. 2, the 
Moving Forward Act, which provided record levels of investment--$500 
billion--in surface transportation programs. This transformational bill 
focused on investing in the outcomes that are possible under a new 
vision:
      a safer, more equitable transportation network for all 
users,
      a cleaner transportation footprint and less carbon 
pollution,
      well-trained and well-paid workers who are ready for new 
technologies,
      underserved communities whose voices are heard and whose 
needs are met,
      transportation systems planned around what truly matters 
to people--greater and easier access to jobs and essential services,
      more efficient mobility utilizing innovation, and
      safe, resilient assets--in good repair--that are built to 
last.

    These are not aspirational principles. These are real policy 
changes and real shifts in how we invest that are woven throughout H.R. 
2.
    Mr. Secretary, I know you share my commitment to this vision. Many 
of these principles overlap with the administration's Build Back Better 
plan.
    But you also know first-hand as a former mayor how vital seamless 
mobility and well-functioning transportation systems are to quality of 
life in cities and towns across America. Moving people and goods safely 
and efficiently is the whole point of good transportation policy.
    Transforming federal transportation funding to provide greater 
local decision-making, and ensuring communities of all sizes receive a 
guaranteed portion of funding under the bill, was a central theme of 
H.R. 2. Local elected officials know the granular needs of their 
communities better than anyone in the state capitols or in federal 
agencies.
    This Congress, Members are going to have even greater opportunities 
to shape investments flowing to their local communities as this 
Committee will collect requests for projects. Through a transparent, 
equitable process, Members of Congress can help direct investments to 
elevate the greatest needs of their districts and boost local control. 
I am pleased that my Republican colleagues are joining in this effort.
    Finally, while I have mostly focused on transportation investments 
on the ground, developments in the skies also require your attention. 
At the end of 2016, the outgoing administration imprudently issued a 
foreign air carrier permit to Norwegian Air International--an airline 
that was ``Norwegian'' in name only and established itself in Ireland 
under a flag of convenience to avoid Norway's strong labor protections. 
Norwegian is bankrupt, and its U.S. services have ceased, but its 
founder is forming a new carrier that will likely seek a permit--Norse 
Atlantic--and it is imperative that you correct the error of 2016 and 
deny this airline's application.
    I also urge you to pay close attention to the Federal Aviation 
Administration's implementation of the bipartisan aircraft 
certification reform bill, which was enacted in December in response to 
two deadly Boeing 737 MAX accidents and the findings of this 
Committee's investigation and the recommendations of other impartial 
panels, including the National Transportation Safety Board.
    On the subject of open mandates, I urge you to expedite action on 
numerous unfulfilled mandates from the 2018 Federal Aviation 
Administration reauthorization: (1) the requirement for secondary 
cockpit barriers, and (2) the mandate for a final rule to address 
fatigue among flight attendants, among many others. And then there's 
the mandate from the 2016 Federal Aviation Administration authorization 
extension bill, requiring a final rule on drug and alcohol testing of 
workers at foreign repair stations. It, too, remains open.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining us today. We are eager to 
hear how we can best work together with you, President Biden, and Vice 
President Harris, on achieving our shared goals and moving America 
forward.

    Mr. DeFazio. With that, I recognize my ranking member, Sam 
Graves.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank 
you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. Your appearance in 
the committee is obviously very timely, and we do appreciate 
you appearing before us.
    Infrastructure means a lot of different things to a lot of 
different people, but to myself and to my colleagues on the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, it is about the 
highway bill. And a bipartisan highway bill that improves our 
infrastructure, that creates jobs, and strengthens the U.S. 
economy should be the top priority for this committee.
    And I have always said that it is partnership and not 
partisanship that gets results. You and I have discussed, on a 
couple of occasions, the path to a bipartisan bill, at least 
the way I see it, needs to meet a few key targets. I don't 
think the bill can grow into a multitrillion-dollar catchall. 
It needs to be manageable and responsible. We need to ensure 
equity between the rural and urban areas, which is a major 
concern that I have with the reconciliation bill, besides the 
process itself, was how little attention rural America 
received.
    And, finally, a transportation bill I think needs to be a 
transportation bill, not a Green New Deal. It needs to be about 
roads and bridges. And I hope that as this committee works on 
our next major bill, that we remember to prioritize 
transportation infrastructure and that we don't reduce our core 
programs--roads, bridges, ports, airports, and rail. We don't 
reduce those to an afterthought.
    And there are ways that we can work together to reduce 
transportation emissions and protect our environment, but this 
committee's focus should be on transportation.
    We also need to invest taxpayers' money wisely where it 
helps them the most. After providing unprecedented levels of 
COVID-related relief this past year, we need to carefully 
consider what goes into a transportation package. The more 
massive any bill becomes, the more bipartisanship suffers, and 
I want to stress that we are ready to partner with you in 
making critical investments and strengthening our 
transportation system.
    While a transportation bill is among the most important 
things that this committee does, it is not the only thing, as 
was pointed out by Chairman DeFazio.
    So, I want to highlight a couple of key issues before the 
Department of Transportation, that are at least at the top of 
my list. And one is preserving the FAA's gold standard and 
standing internationally, and specifically when it comes to 
safety. The FAA is the leader in safety and certification. 
There is no question in my mind about that.
    And the second thing is, ensuring that the billions of 
dollars that have flowed to transit agencies are shared with 
transit contractors who have worked hand-in-hand with the 
agencies to keep these systems operating throughout the 
pandemic, and all the time they retained their workers, and 
many of those were union employees.
    There are a whole lot of other things out there that are of 
interest to me, but in the interest of time, I want to keep it 
at that, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say, 
and look forward to working with you. And, again, I want to 
thank you for being here today.
    [Mr. Graves of Missouri's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
  Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress 
     from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure
    Thank you, Chair DeFazio, and thank you, Secretary Buttigieg, for 
being here today. Your appearance before our Committee is timely.
    While infrastructure means different things to different people, to 
me and my colleagues on the Transportation Committee, it's the highway 
bill. And a bipartisan highway bill that improves our infrastructure, 
creates jobs, and strengthens the U.S. economy should be a top priority 
for this Committee.
    Partnership--not partisanship--gets results. As you and I have 
discussed, the path to a bipartisan bill needs to meet a few key 
targets.
    This bill cannot grow into a multitrillion-dollar catchall. It 
needs to be manageable and responsible.
    We need to ensure equity between rural and urban areas. A major 
concern with the reconciliation bill--besides the process itself--was 
how little attention rural America received.
    And finally, a transportation bill needs to be a transportation 
bill--not the Green New Deal. This needs to be about roads and bridges.
    I hope that as this committee works on our next major bill, we 
remember to prioritize transportation infrastructure, and that we don't 
reduce our core programs--roads, bridges, ports, airports, and rails--
to an afterthought. There are ways we can work together to reduce 
transportation emissions and protect our environment, but this 
Committee's focus should be transportation.
    We also need to invest taxpayers' money wisely where it helps them 
the most. After providing unprecedented levels of COVID-related relief 
this past year, we need to carefully consider what goes into this 
infrastructure package. The more massive any bill becomes, the more 
bipartisanship suffers.
    I want to stress that we are ready to partner with you in making 
critical investments and strengthening our transportation system.
    While passing a transportation bill is among the most important 
things this Committee does, it is not the only thing. So, I also want 
to highlight a couple key issues before the Department of 
Transportation that are top of mind for me.
    First, preserving the FAA's gold standard and standing 
internationally--specifically on safety. The FAA is the leader in 
safety and certification--without question.
    Second, ensuring that the billions of dollars that have flowed to 
transit agencies are shared with transit contractors who have worked 
hand-in-hand with the agencies to keep these systems operating 
throughout the pandemic--all while retaining their workers, many of 
them union employees.
    There are many more, but in the interest of time I'll keep it at 
that. Thank you again for being here today.

    Mr. Graves of Missouri. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back.
    Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman.
    With that, I would recognize Secretary Buttigieg. Mr. 
Secretary.

TESTIMONY OF HON. PETE BUTTIGIEG, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, 
               U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you very much. Chairman 
DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the committee, I 
want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the 
administration's priorities for transportation infrastructure. 
And I am grateful for the committee's longstanding leadership 
on these issues, and for continuing the important conversation 
that we are having today.
    I believe that we have, at this moment, the best chance in 
any of our lifetimes to make a generational investment in 
infrastructure that will help us meet the country's most 
pressing challenges of today, and create a stronger future for 
decades to come.
    Our country is now emerging from a pandemic that has taken 
the lives of more than 535,000 Americans. Relief is on the way, 
thanks to the President's American Rescue Plan passed by 
Congress, but there is near universal recognition that a 
broader recovery will require a national commitment to fix and 
transform America's infrastructure.
    There are good reasons why infrastructure has such strong 
bipartisan support. Every citizen, regardless of political 
affiliation, shares the need for reliable roads, railways, and 
air transportation. We all live with the damage that has been 
caused by a history of disinvestment, and the resulting unmet 
needs that are only growing by the day.
    Across the country, we face a $1 trillion backlog of needed 
repairs and improvements with hundreds of billions of dollars 
in good projects already in the pipeline. We see other 
countries pulling ahead of us, with consequences for strategic 
and economic competition. By some measures, China spends more 
on infrastructure every year than the U.S. and Europe combined. 
The infrastructure status quo is a threat to our collective 
future. We face an imperative to create resilient 
infrastructure and confront inequities that have devastated 
communities.
    Right now, nearly 40,000 Americans die on our roads 
annually. Millions live in communities isolated, or divided, by 
missing or misplaced infrastructure. And millions of Americans 
don't have access to affordable transportation options to get 
around. Before the pandemic, commuting times were getting 
longer for average Americans while their housing and 
transportation costs soared. And without action, it will only 
get worse.
    In the United States, transportation is the leading 
contributor to climate change, contributing to a pattern of 
extreme weather events, which takes a severe toll on our 
infrastructure. Every dollar we spend rebuilding from a 
climate-driven disaster is a dollar we could have spent 
building a more competitive, modern, and resilient 
transportation system that produces significantly lower 
emissions.
    It doesn't have to be this way. Wise transportation 
investments are key to making the American dream accessible for 
all, leading our global competitors in innovation, getting 
people and goods where they need to be, creating good jobs--
jobs that are union or pay prevailing wages--and tackling our 
climate crisis.
    Just like those who summoned the will to build the 
transcontinental railroad in the 1800s and the Interstate 
Highway System in the 1950s, we, too, have the opportunity now 
to imagine and create a different future for American 
transportation.
    I know that expectations have been raised before when it 
comes to major moves in American infrastructure, but now, in 
this season, we can turn aspirations into action.
    Now is the time to create millions of good jobs--for 
American workers, to help communities and businesses--big and 
small, rural and urban--to compete and win in the global 
economy.
    Now is the time to clear the backlog and repair our 
highways, roads, bridges, maritime ports, airports, and more, 
to enhance freight and passenger rail, and to provide 
accessible public transit and mobility options for all.
    Now is the time to redouble our commitment to 
transportation reliability and safety and ensure that families 
will no longer have to mourn tragic deaths that could have been 
prevented.
    Now is the time to finally address major inequities, 
including those caused by highways that were built through 
Black and Brown communities, decades of disinvestment that left 
small towns and rural main streets stranded, and the 
disproportionate pollution burden from trucks, ports, and other 
facilities.
    Now is the time to improve the air we breathe and tackle 
the climate crisis by moving the U.S. to net-zero greenhouse 
gas emissions, building a national electric vehicle charging 
network, and investing in transit-oriented development, 
sustainable aviation, and resilient infrastructure.
    So taking my lead from President Biden and Vice President 
Harris, I stand ready to work with Members of Congress, on both 
sides of the aisle, to deliver an infrastructure package that 
meets this consequential moment and ensures a future worthy of 
our great Nation. I believe this is what America deserves, and 
this is what we can deliver if we can seize this moment 
together.
    So, thank you again for inviting me to be here today, and I 
am looking forward to your questions.
    [Mr. Buttigieg's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
Prepared Statement of Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, 
                   U.S. Department of Transportation
    Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the 
Administration's priorities for transportation infrastructure. I am 
grateful for the committee's longstanding leadership on this issue and 
for continuing this important conversation at today's hearing.
    I believe we have--at this moment--the best chance in any of our 
lifetimes to make a generational investment in infrastructure that will 
help us meet our country's most pressing challenges today and create a 
stronger future for decades to come.
    Our country is now emerging from a pandemic that has taken the 
lives of more than 535,000 Americans. Relief is on the way thanks to 
the President's American Rescue Plan passed by Congress, but there is 
near universal recognition that a broader recovery will require a 
national commitment to fix and transform America's infrastructure.
    There are good reasons why infrastructure has such strong 
bipartisan support. Every citizen, regardless of political affiliation, 
shares the need for reliable roads, railways, and air transportation. 
We all live with the damage that has been caused by a history of 
disinvestment and the resulting unmet needs that are only growing by 
the day.
    Across the country, we face a trillion-dollar backlog of needed 
repairs and improvements, with hundreds of billions of dollars in good 
projects already in the pipeline. We see other countries pulling ahead 
of us, with consequences for strategic and economic competition. By 
some measures, China spends more on infrastructure every year than the 
U.S. and Europe combined. The infrastructure status quo is a threat to 
our collective future. We face an imperative to create resilient 
infrastructure and confront inequities that have devastated 
communities.
    Right now, nearly 40,000 Americans die on our roads annually, 
millions live in communities isolated or divided by missing or 
misplaced infrastructure, and millions of Americans don't have access 
to affordable transportation options to get around. Before the 
pandemic, commuting times were getting longer for average Americans 
while their housing and transportation costs soared. And, without 
action, it will only get worse.
    In the United States, transportation is the leading contributor to 
climate change, contributing to a pattern of extreme weather events, 
which takes a severe toll on our infrastructure. Every dollar we spend 
rebuilding from a climate-driven disaster is a dollar we could have 
spent building a more competitive, modern, and resilient transportation 
system that produces significantly lower emissions.
    It doesn't have to be this way. Wise transportation investments are 
key to making the American Dream accessible for all, leading our global 
competitors in innovation, getting people and goods where they need to 
be, creating good jobs--jobs that are union or pay prevailing wages--
and tackling our climate crisis.
    Just like those who summoned the will to build the transcontinental 
railroad in the 1800s and the interstate highway system in the 1950s, 
we too have the opportunity now to imagine--and create--a different 
future for America's transportation.
    I know that expectations have been raised before when it comes to 
major moves in American infrastructure. But now, in this season, we can 
turn aspirations into action.
    Now is the time to create millions of good jobs--for American 
workers, to help communities and businesses--big and small, rural and 
urban--to compete and win in the global economy.
    Now is the time--to clear the backlog and repair our highways, 
roads, bridges, maritime ports, and airports, to enhance freight and 
passenger rail, and to provide accessible public transit and mobility 
options for all.
    Now is the time to redouble our commitment to transportation 
reliability and safety and ensure that families will no longer have to 
mourn tragic deaths that could have been prevented.
    Now is the time to finally address major inequities--including 
those caused by highways that were built through Black and Brown 
communities, decades of disinvestment that left small towns and rural 
main streets stranded, and the disproportionate pollution burden from 
trucks, ports, and other facilities.
    Now is the time to improve the air we breathe and tackle the 
climate crisis by moving the U.S. to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, 
building a national EV charging network, and investing in transit, 
transit-oriented development, sustainable aviation, and resilient 
infrastructure.
    Taking my lead from President Biden and Vice President Harris, I 
stand ready to work with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle 
to deliver an infrastructure package that meets this consequential 
moment and ensures a future worthy of our great nation.
    This is what Americans deserve. And this is what we can deliver if 
we seize this moment together.
    Thank you again for inviting me to be here today, and I look 
forward to your questions.

    Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. You are off to a 
great start. You did it in less than 5 minutes, so we 
appreciate that.
    So a couple of quick issues. I raised the issue of a 
reapplication by the new Norse Atlantic Airways. I would just 
like your assurance that you are not just going to adopt the 
standards and the judgment of the past administration, the 
Obama administration. I know you can't discuss potential 
standing, but I just want assurance that there will be a 
thorough and clean-sheet review of this proposal.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Understood. As of this time, we have 
not yet received an application from the specific carrier you 
mentioned, but we are aware of the news reports of the 
potential future service that you described. So you have my 
commitment, Chairman, that we would adjudicate any foreign 
carrier application in accordance with our established 
regulatory process and with all of the relevant international 
agreements.
    Mr. DeFazio. Including labor laws.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Indeed.
    Mr. DeFazio. You have mentioned the oversight of pipeline 
safety on ``Jimmy Kimmel Live!'' We passed a bipartisan bill 
through the committee, and it was adopted in the final package 
at year-end by the Senate, called the PIPES Act, which has 
important provisions to reduce methane leaks which, of course, 
are way worse than CO2, from existing pipelines. As long as 
natural gas is being piped around, we don't need to 
unnecessarily pollute. I hope you have plans to expedite 
implementation of some of the new provisions we put in place.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes. We have been working on 
implementing this new PIPES Act since passage and appreciate 
the leadership of Congress directing us to include 
environmental impacts in the rulemaking. So we have a process 
underway of making sure that PHMSA, the relevant modal 
administration, is staffed up for this. That includes hiring 
new attorneys, bringing on the first environmental economist, 
and the first agencywide NEPA expert for PHMSA.
    And, we are working also to finalize rules that have been 
pending for a while, but are close to the finish line, so that 
we can prioritize those that are going to have the biggest 
impact.
    I also just want to mention that PHMSA's website, as part 
of our compliance with the congressional directive, now 
includes monthly progress updates on the PIPES Act to make sure 
that there is transparency about our work and the timelines 
there.
    Mr. DeFazio. Excellent. Good to hear that.
    I appreciate the fact that the administration repealed the 
nonsensical rule on CIG grants by the previous administration 
that said that TIFIA loans, when an entity borrows money that 
they are going to have to repay with interest, that it doesn't 
count as a local cost share, I appreciate that you have 
repealed that. That was idiotic.
    But they also issued changes to the risk assessment process 
that, according to analysis done by this committee, added $650 
million in total project costs, and done without any 
consultation with stakeholders. Is the administration planning 
to repeal the changes to the CIG risk assessment policy and 
save money and expedite projects?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So we are aware of this concern. I 
want to first just reiterate the administration's commitment to 
the CIG program. We know how important it has been for 
successfully delivering important projects.
    And as you mentioned, the prior administration changed how 
this risk assessment calculation was conducted. So we are 
taking on board the concerns that stakeholder groups have 
raised, and the FTA is reviewing those changes so that we can 
have an appropriate cost estimate validation process that is 
reasonable and attainable when it comes to the risk standard.
    Mr. DeFazio. Great. And then, finally, I am about to run 
out of time. I am going to be pretty strict on time limits 
today because I want to give everybody an opportunity.
    We have two spectrum issues; one is ground-based, and one 
is based in space. The C-band for 5G from satellite can 
potentially interfere with radio altimeters. Unfortunately, it 
was auctioned, but we are going to have to be absolutely 
certain before it is implemented that we are not going to lose 
GPS and radio altimeters because someone wants to make money 
selling a service so people can see things more quickly on 
their cell phones.
    And then the 5.9 gigahertz, if we are going to move forward 
with V2V, vehicle-to-vehicle communication, and potentially, 
someday, automated vehicles, any interference in the 5.9-
gigahertz spectrum, which the last Secretary objected to this, 
the committee objected to it, the industry, you know, all the 
auto industry and others objected to it, but the FCC went 
ahead. I hope that the administration could reengage with the 
FCC on this issue. Both of those issues, actually.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes. So if I might take those in 
reverse order, on the 5.9 spectrum, often known as the safety 
band, that is a very important priority for transportation 
communications and public safety. I know that in the prior 
administration as well, the Department communicated its 
concerns, and I know there has been bipartisan concern in the 
committee as well, and we share that concern.
    So we are going to be engaging with counterparts across the 
administration on a way forward, and trying to establish the 
best way to handle and share the spectrum that is consistent 
with, not just the safety and communications as we know them, 
but where they are headed.
    On the C-band, the 3.7-gigahertz spectrum, we are very 
concerned about the potential for harmful interference to radar 
altimeters which are, as you know, very important on commercial 
transport aircraft, general aviation aircraft, business jets, 
helicopters, and increasingly UAVs, so we will be working to 
ensure that we are having the right posture with respect to the 
interagency conversations and the conversation with industry 
with, once again, the fundamental North Star of our Department 
being safety.
    Mr. DeFazio. I thank the Secretary.
    I went about a minute over, Sam, so I am going to recognize 
you now, and you can have 6 minutes if you want.
    Ranking Member Graves.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be 
mindful of my time as well.
    Mr. Secretary, again, I appreciate you being here today. I 
mentioned in my opening statement about the transit contractors 
being able to get the COVID relief running through the FTA. 
Recently, DOT did upgrade its guidance, and I am hopeful that 
the problem may be fixed for the time being. But I think it 
needs to be a priority that we continue to clarify that COVID 
relief funding needs to reimburse the transit contractors' 
payroll and operating expenses, because they preserved those 
jobs. In some cases, the ridership was down to 10 percent of 
normal ridership, and they preserved all those jobs and kept 
the trains running on time.
    And I just hope you work with us and commit to ensuring 
that those contractors are allowed to access the COVID relief 
funds that Congress appropriated to the FTA.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. I appreciate you raising 
this, and as you mentioned, I believe this has increasingly 
been addressed. So with the FTA now able to offer, overall, 
more than $69 billion in relief to transit agencies as part of 
the COVID response, the priority is, of course, keeping people 
employed, and keeping service on the street.
    So there will continue to be a requirement for transit 
agencies to certify that they have not furloughed employees and 
that contracted staff have not been furloughed before they 
would be able to spend those relief dollars on any activities 
other than payroll and operation expenses. And the FTA is 
putting out guidance that is intended to be consistent with the 
congressional directive. We certainly understand how important 
it is to keep people employed and the role of contractors in 
that.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you.
    The other thing I wanted to talk to you just a little bit 
about, too, is the way we are funding the Highway Trust Fund. 
Traditionally, highway infrastructure has always been paid and 
maintained by the users, and that has always been through a 
fuel tax. The unfortunate part is as we continue to see that 
decline over time, then we end up supplementing from other 
areas the shortfall.
    And I was tickled to death during your Presidential 
campaign when you brought up funding our system of 
infrastructure, highway infrastructure, through VMT, which it 
is no secret that I am a proponent of VMT. And I am not going 
to go there specifically, but I hope you will work with us to 
ensure long-term solvency in the Highway Trust Fund by working 
with us, obviously, to ensure a viable user fee system. And 
that is one of the nice things about transportation in our 
arena is, we still have true trust funds throughout the system, 
and we want to make sure that they are viable, and that 
everybody that uses those systems, obviously, pays in. There is 
no real question here. I just want to make sure that you 
continue to work with us as we find ways to make sure that that 
is viable, and that we have money in those user fee systems.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. I really look forward 
to working with you on that. As you said, we need stable, 
predictable, multiyear funding, and yet, both because of the 
difficulty in Washington adjusting the gas tax historically, 
and looking to the future, the changing role of gasoline and 
the use of cars outright, we are obviously going to need to 
come to more solutions if we want to preserve that users pay 
principle.
    Mr. Graves of Missouri. So thank you very much, Mr. 
Chairman. I will yield back so we can get done with questions.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks very much.
    Mr. DeFazio. Thanks.
    Representative Norton.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, I need to devote my time to the 
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise notion, because we had a very 
successful hearing on that in September, and there are many 
questions that continue to be raised. For example, personal net 
worth requirements have not been updated for over a decade. 
Now, I have been told that your Department is reviewing them. 
Could we know whether you intend to increase them, or why or 
why not, please?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you, Congresswoman, for raising 
this. It is my view that we have an enormous opportunity, and 
an imperative to ensure that the taxpayer dollars that flow 
through this Department go to businesses and workers who 
resemble this country. And we have obviously got a long way to 
go, and support for DBEs is a really important part of that.
    With regard to the specific adjustment you are describing, 
I want to take that up with our Office of Small and 
Disadvantaged Business Utilization, which I know is reviewing 
that right now to make sure we understand the impacts, but we 
will certainly do everything we can to make sure that this 
program, this vision, becomes more robust in the time ahead.
    Ms. Norton. I would appreciate your reporting back to the 
chairman what your office has found, because that is a pressing 
concern.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Will do.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Secretary, along the same lines, I am also 
troubled to learn what it takes for businesses, DBEs, to apply 
in multiple States. You would think that the certification used 
would be the same, and it is the same across the country, but 
in fact, it is not the same. It differs from State to State. 
Can you commit to developing a more streamlined process? I 
mean, it could be reciprocity. It could be more centralized. 
What can you do to make it easier for small businesses to apply 
across a number of States?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, it is a priority for us to make 
this process more user friendly. And I know that businesses 
that seek to engage with the Federal Government are often 
confronted with a dizzying array of requirements or 
expectations that don't always match. And I can tell you, 
without yet having all of the pieces in place on how we can act 
most swiftly to do it, I have made clear to my top team that 
this will be a priority. I would welcome a chance to work with 
you on how to harmonize the experience across States, and also 
just make the process less confusing or daunting for businesses 
that are trying to enter, sometimes, areas of doing business 
with the American taxpayer that are viewed as belonging to 
those who are already in the know. We have really got to open 
it up.
    Ms. Norton. Please get back to us, Mr. Secretary, on 
whether you are using reciprocity incentives or some kind of 
more centralized certification process so that we can respond 
at our next hearing on that issue.
    Let me ask you about another significant barrier that many 
of the DBEs face, and that is contract size. The federally 
funded contracts have to be bundled together, are often bundled 
together. It makes it too large for small businesses to 
compete, forcing many to apply as subcontractors, and 
precluding many to apply as prime contractors.
    Now, I understand that there are Davis-Bacon concerns. Are 
you willing to work with us on possible ways of unbundling 
contracts to provide greater opportunity for small businesses 
to compete for Federal contracts in particular?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I am. And I would welcome working with 
you as well as opening a dialogue with the Small Business 
Administration on this. True equity in contracting means that 
we would see DBEs, both as subcontractors and as prime 
contractors working with our Department and with every 
Department.
    Ms. Norton. Finally, let me and you a question about one of 
my favorite subjects, mobility on demand, because in my 
district, we see increasing use of bikes and scooters.
    Mr. DeFazio. Eleanor, if you want him to answer, you have 
got to let him answer because you have only got 13 seconds.
    Mobility on demand, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Big fan right here in the District of 
taking advantage of things like the Capital Bikeshare and 
welcome a chance to work with you on that, too.
    Mr. DeFazio. OK. The time for the gentlelady has expired.
    Mr. Young.
    Mr. Young. Can you hear me?
    Mr. DeFazio. Yes.
    Mr. Young. You can hear me?
    Mr. DeFazio. Yes.
    Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thanks for appearing 
before the Congress and the committee. As ex-chairman, I have 
one suggestion. I talked with the White House the other day, 
the Chief of Staff. My suggestion was that you let the chairman 
and the ranking member work together, and you be there, but let 
them negotiate, and let the committee negotiate, and we will 
come out with a good bill. Some of the things you propose, I 
don't necessarily agree with, and some of the things I propose, 
you don't necessarily agree with. There is a meeting of the 
minds, and transportation is the key to our economy. You can't 
have an economy that doesn't have a good transportation system. 
And that is the thing that I have always been interested in, 
and that includes ports. It includes short rail. It includes 
long rail. It includes highways. And not just the traffic of 
the individuals.
    I was noticing during the pandemic, that a lot of the 
traffic decreased. In fact, there was less pollution in the air 
because people worked from home. I don't like that idea, but it 
will work. We have to start looking at our structure of our 
economy, and how people put in time to get things done.
    You have a great job ahead of you. I am really proud of the 
fact that you got to be the Secretary of Transportation. I have 
worked with over 10 Secretaries of Transportation in my career. 
As chairman, I was successful with Mr. Oberstar writing a good 
bill. I believe Ms. Norton is the only one there when we wrote 
that last bill. Maybe Eddie Bernice, too.
    But having said that, it goes back to what the ranking 
member said. We do have to fund this some way. I mean, if we 
write a bill that doesn't have the right funding, are we going 
to borrow that money? Can we explain to the public we are 
borrowing on the future?
    I like the trust fund. I happen to think that a user fee 
and mileage is very important, especially if you go forth as 
you are suggesting on electric cars, which I have one, by the 
way. They call me a greenie. The one thing we don't have is 
charging stations, so that is something that you can help out 
on.
    We want to be a teammate, and I am confident we can do it. 
So one question. You sort of hedged around Sam's question. Does 
the administration or yourself have an idea how to fund this 
program other than borrowing, or if borrow it is, we have to 
make sure we know it now. So what is the answer about the 
funding program?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, first of all, thank you very 
much. And I hope that as your 11th to make a good mark here at 
the Department, and, certainly, recognize that we are building 
on a foundation of fantastic cooperation in this committee.
    With regard to your specific question about pay-fors, I 
have heard loud and clear from Members of Congress, Republican 
and Democratic, that an infrastructure proposal needs to have 
at least a partial funding source, and I know that that is a 
challenging conversation. Ultimately, while there are many 
complicated details, there is a simple set of places we can 
look, user fees, general fund, or other tax sources, as 
Congress has done to fill gaps in the Highway Trust Fund in 
recent years, or borrowing. And the bulk of any proposal will 
amount to whatever Congress is prepared to authorize in any 
combination of those sources.
    Again, I know the President will be speaking more to the 
overall vision soon, but I know that without cooperation with 
Congress, we would never be able to arrive at a healthy balance 
of how this can be, at least, partially paid for.
    Mr. Young. Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary, and as 
the members of the committee, we have a responsibility--I 
haven't been around when Eisenhower was around. He built an 
interstate system, an intrastate system, and it is what has 
made this Nation great. The President has a chance to leave a 
legacy behind of a good transportation system. And I think the 
public is willing to pay for it if they get a transportation 
system. I think 10 States now that have passed it. A user fee, 
a higher user fee, as long as the user knows the money is going 
into transportation.
    So, again, Mr. Secretary, I welcome you aboard. And we will 
see whether we give you a grade. At the end of the 4 years, I 
will give you a grade.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
    Mr. Young. So God bless you all, and just work with us, 
work with the chairman and ranking member. The ranking member 
can communicate with us, and a little bit of give on each side, 
a little bit of take, you know, it works out a good bill. We 
wrote a good bill. And I never had an adverse vote against that 
bill in the committee, and on the floor of the House, I only 
lost 14 votes, so that means working together. Thank you, Mr. 
Secretary.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you very much.
    Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Thanks, Don. Yes, the 2006 bill was 
the last best transportation bill.
    Now, we move on to Ms. Johnson from Texas.
    Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 
and the ranking member for organizing this hearing, and the 
visit with the Secretary. And welcome, Mr. Secretary. We are 
delighted that you are taking the time to visit with us.
    As I mentioned before, I am a graduate of St. Mary's 
College of that University of Notre Dame at the South Bend of 
Lake Michigan, and, so, I have seen much of your leadership, 
and it is much appreciated.
    I am the senior Texan on this committee. I was there when 
Mr. Young was chair and lots of other things that happened. I 
am delighted that I have a few Texans who join me, because 
Texas is a big State to work in transportation when you are 
alone. It is 1,100 miles long and 1,000 miles wide with ports, 
inland ports, interstates, and I think all of it runs through 
my district. The critical infrastructure and the businesses 
built around it is what stimulates our economy. My area, 
Dallas, is 29.3 percent of the Texas economy.
    We have a big agenda before us, because transportation is 
so vitally important to Texas. In my north Texas area, where my 
district is basically Dallas, we have two major airlines: 
American Airlines and Southwest. We have Greyhound. We have a 
local rapid rail system. We have several general aviation 
airports in the area. And we have one of the largest inland 
ports in the area. So, we really have great need and great 
interest in transportation.
    Very soon, we hope that Dallas would be the northern hub 
for our Nation's first private sector, intercity passenger 
high-speed rail, providing a 90-minute connection between 
Dallas and Houston.
    Now, let me just say that right now, Dallas is closer to 
Oklahoma City than it is to Houston, so that would be a miracle 
for us. We have the largest port in the Nation in Houston, and 
Dallas has the largest inland port. We dominate the trade 
market in Texas, and perhaps even in the country, so we have 
great need for transportation.
    When I came onto this committee 29 years ago, my goal was 
to get a seamless intermodal system around the metroplex in 
Dallas-Fort Worth. We have gone a long way, but we have got a 
ways to go. We have been trying to recover from COVID-19, which 
we are still in the midst of, and we know we must rebuild our 
infrastructure. Because of our distances, everybody who works 
drives or rides to that work. And, so, we are very, very 
interested in staying involved.
    We have several negative consequences like pollution, 
dangerous streets, disinvestment, disconnected neighborhoods, 
and transportation systems that are not quite complete. So to 
put it mildly, we are working toward equitable opportunities 
for good transportation, and we know that you are the right 
leader at this right time to help us move in that direction. So 
thank you very much. I think my time is over.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady.
    And we now move to Mr. Crawford.
    Mr. Gibbs.
    Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 
Secretary, for being with us today. I hope under your 
leadership in the Department of Transportation, you will 
provide for a regulatory climate that doesn't stifle 
innovation, and incentives to allow for the market to function. 
I think those are key.
    And with that thought in mind, does the Department plan to 
continue the Non-traditional and Emerging Transportation 
Technology Council, which is an internal deliberative body that 
the Department tasked with identifying and resolving 
jurisdictional and regulatory gaps that may impede the 
deployment of new technology, such as tunneling, hyperloop, and 
autonomous vehicles, and other innovations?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you, Congressman. As you point 
out, there are a lot of innovations coming our way that are 
going to make such a difference in transportation technology. 
We are prioritizing safety, but also just making sure that 
these technologies can flourish.
    So, I am very interested in the work of the NETT Council 
and will want to engage that body and make sure the Department 
can be an advocate and a partner for innovators and for users 
alike.
    Mr. Gibbs. Do you have any ideas on what the Department can 
do [inaudible] self-sufficient operations? What kind of 
incentives might the Federal Government be able to do?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I think I understood--I am sorry. The 
audio broke up for a moment, but I think I understood you to be 
asking about how Federal policy could support autonomous 
vehicles, and that kind of technology. Correct me if I am on 
the wrong track.
    So, I believe the biggest thing that we need to do is, of 
course, establish safety and establish certainty for industry. 
I would suggest that the policy framework in the U.S. has not 
really caught up with the technology platforms, or some of the 
things that are increasingly becoming capable. And that is a 
problem, both from a safety perspective and from a market 
perspective because a lot of other countries are developing 
very robust strategies for that. So we intend to pay a lot of 
attention to that and do everything we can within our 
authorities.
    I just want to note that we may need to work with Congress 
as well on adjusting those authorities because a lot of the 
regulatory frameworks we work within, and the statutory 
frameworks we work within, simply don't contemplate self-
operating vehicles or other equipment.
    Mr. Gibbs. Thank you for that. In 2018, Congress passed the 
National Timing Resilience and Security Act, which requires 
implementation of a terrestrial GPS backup timing signal. Do 
you intend to implement that act, and if so, when?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So I am aware of the congressional 
expectation on this, and certainly consider it very important. 
This is a kind of technology that is not only relevant in the 
transportation sector, but emergency response, timing signals, 
climatology studies, all of this is at stake.
    So in response to the requirement in the fiscal year 2018 
NDAA, and synchronizing with similar work that I know is going 
on with DoD and the Department of Homeland Security, the 
Department conducted a GPS backup demonstration, which 
recommends that there be standards developed and test 
procedures and monitoring capabilities established, as well as 
to make sure that the various kinds of equipment can work with 
them, and that they need to be resilient and interoperable.
    The transportation sector has some of the most stringent 
performance requirements in regard to those safety and 
reliability considerations, so as we pursue this, we will want 
to continue working with Congress and recognizing the 
interagency character of this kind of work.
    Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. You know, we have seen the surge of 
cargo in our ports and the shortage of containers for the 
containerships and exports and imports. What can the Department 
do to help improve the supply and locations of these containers 
to ensure that these containers are more available to U.S. 
exporters?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So this, I think, is a part of the 
broader conversation about supply chain that certainly the 
administration is concerned about, and it is playing a real 
role and becoming a real issue in many dimensions of our 
economy. We need to make sure we have as much of a robust 
domestic capability as possible, and that we can identify where 
the limiting factor really is when you have some of these 
backups that we are seeing in a lot of different parts of the 
country.
    So some of this might involve wandering a little bit 
outside of the lane of what the Department of Transportation 
does, but it is just another example of where we need to be 
collaborating and coordinating with other partners in the 
administration to make sure we have a whole-of-Government 
approach.
    Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Secretary. I think I am out of time, 
so I wish you all the best.
    I yield back.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks very much.
    Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Larsen.
    Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, good to see you, and I welcome you back to 
Washington State's Second Congressional District any time.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
    Mr. Larsen. Especially the San Juan Islands.
    I want to actually focus my comments more on the roads, 
bridges, highways, transit side of things, but I do want to 
highlight the letter I sent to you and your office in January 
regarding the Aviation Subcommittee's priorities as chair of 
the Aviation Subcommittee. But rather than relive all that, I 
just want to highlight that for you.
    And, then, the second thing I want to highlight in 
aviation, you have no need to comment, but just a reminder of 
the conversation we had about implementing the Aviation 
Manufacturing Jobs Protection Act, which was part of the 
American Rescue Plan and highlighting that for the supply chain 
workers around the country.
    My questions are really on, again, the roads, bridges, 
highways, transit side of things. In the Northwest, 
transportation means jobs. I do think we need a major 
investment in transportation infrastructure. I think it will 
create jobs. I think it will help economic recovery, and will 
ensure the safety of our transportation system, and we can do 
it cleaner and greener.
    We are already behind China, as you mentioned. We are 
behind the EU. We are behind the business sector in the United 
States. We aren't leading anything when it comes to using 
transportation as an investment in climate change. So I do 
think that we can use the transportation investments to catch 
up, and to support the business sector. We had a hearing that 
outlined that very clearly.
    On that point, some of this stuff is big, some of this 
stuff is just small ball. And on one of those, I want to know 
how the DOT sees the role of low- and no-emission transit 
investment--we have got two jurisdictions here in my district 
who are continuing that investment--and how you see the budget, 
your proposal, stacking up on low- and no-emission transit?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thanks for the question. We 
think it is going to be very important, first of all, making 
sure there are more transit opportunities writ large, so that 
individuals don't have to always rely on individual vehicles in 
order to get to where they need to be. But also making sure 
when they do opt for transit, that the emissions profile of 
those buses or light rail cars or other vehicles are as low or 
no emission as possible. That is the intent of the Low-No 
Program. As you know, we recently had a cycle of that go out, 
and I am certainly hopeful that that will continue to enjoy 
robust support from Congress, because it is a crucial part, in 
my view, of how we can make sure that we are meeting our 
climate goals.
    Mr. Larsen. I want to switch to diversity and equity. It is 
not just a matter of diversity and equity in considering where 
we put transportation infrastructure, but it is also the women 
and men who work in the transportation workforce as well. And I 
want to know if you have a vision of how to connect 
transportation investment to helping both diversify the 
workforce, which is going to be necessary over time as well as 
tying the transportation investment into registered 
apprenticeships?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes. I see a lot of opportunity for us 
to build a more diverse workforce of people at every level, 
from those who work in this building in the Department, and can 
be attracted to be involved in public service around 
transportation, to those who are actually on sites and doing 
the work on the ground. I envision more robust partnerships 
with labor and with industry in order to make sure that we are 
building that more diverse workforce. But frankly, I think we 
need to better model it here as a Department ourselves, knowing 
how much the industry and the Department recruit from one 
another. And that involves everything from, as you mentioned, 
apprenticeships and making sure those are really open to people 
who may not have seen themselves in those trades before, to 
reaching people at the youngest possible age, even reaching 
into middle school when they first begin to picture a future 
for themselves, and letting those who are underrepresented know 
that they are welcome and needed in the transportation sector.
    Mr. Larsen. Thanks. I will be quick with this last 
question, and it is about one of the bread-and-butter parts of 
transportation, and that is just bridge safety. We had the 
Skagit River Bridge fall a few years back. We got that 
repaired. Do you have an idea of how much investment, relative 
to everything else, that the administration is going to include 
in bridge safety in your infrastructure package?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, we know that there is an 
enormous backlog when it comes to bridge maintenance. You look 
at the reports out of, for example, the American Society of 
Civil Engineers. We have got a long way to go. So, obviously, 
the numbers are part of what we need to shape together, but 
there is no question that there is a massive, demonstrated 
need, and we need to act on that, and this our best 
opportunity, I think, in a lifetime to do it.
    Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. We now go to Mr. Webster. Mr. 
Webster.
    Mr. Webster. Thank you, Chair, for having invited the 
Secretary. It is really good, Mr. Secretary. Thank you so much 
for coming and just being willing to listen to us. There are a 
lot of people, a lot of opinions, and I know they are all 
flying around, and I have got one, too, just like everybody 
else.
    I know that while Federal funding is important and needed, 
I think that we might be able to agree that there is a bigger 
gap in the funding than actually is available in the 
Government, and one way or another, can't do it alone, the 
Federal Government.
    So last Congress, I joined with some colleagues to 
introduce the Infrastructure Bank for America. This legislation 
would create the bank as a Government-Sponsored Enterprise, a 
GSE, to get private capital off the sidelines, and get it into 
the United States infrastructure in some way, somehow.
    There are other proposals out there, Democratic and 
Republican, that approach it a little bit different this way or 
that way, but in the end, the goal is to supply more money to 
our infrastructure so we might go forward. And, hopefully, we 
can find a path forward. I know we can.
    It is my belief that we have got to create a mechanism to 
make it easier for individuals, pension funds, and other 
investments to be attracted to America's infrastructure. So I 
would ask you: Would you please share your administration's 
view on infrastructure banks, and maybe more broadly, what 
steps the administration is taking to encourage private 
infrastructure investment?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you so much for raising 
this. And, in fairness, having listed the kind of go-to pay-
fors we know of on the public side--fees, taxation, and 
borrowing--it would be a mistake to neglect the possibility of 
mobilizing private capital, too. And I think the concept of an 
infrastructure bank is among the attractive ideas that could 
help us to do that. And I think it certainly deserves to be 
considered as we are forming our ultimate stack of how we can 
get the most investment done.
    In the meantime, I want to mention and highlight the 
private activity bond or PAB allocation authority that we do 
have, not on the scale, I think, of what you are suggesting in 
terms of an infrastructure bank, but something that has, I 
think, a demonstrated track record of helping to involve the 
private sector and helping to lower the cost of financing 
projects.
    We have a $15 billion capacity right now, and we have 
essentially reached it in terms of the popularity of the 
program and the interest in it. So, I would mention that as 
something that is already there that might be adjusted in terms 
of its capacity. We could also really welcome the concept of an 
infrastructure bank, or some other vehicle that can help us to 
mobilize what we know is a lot of private capital sitting on 
the sidelines when we have such demonstrated need across the 
country.
    Mr. Webster. Well, thank you so much for that answer, and I 
look forward to working with you in the future. And maybe we 
can come up with something that everybody could agree with and 
put more money into infrastructure.
    I yield back.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
    Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman.
    Mrs. Napolitano.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, thank for your support in expanding electric 
vehicle charging infrastructure to reduce the range anxiety. I 
included a provision in last year's transportation bill that 
would amend the Federal law from the 1950s prohibiting EV 
charging stations at transit park and rides and public rest 
areas on the highway.
    My district is home to the largest transit station on the 
west coast called El Monte Transit Center because the transit 
station is next [inaudible].
    Mr. DeFazio. Your audio just faded out, Grace. You missed 
about 10 seconds there. There we go.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Do you hear me now?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes.
    Mr. DeFazio. Yes.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Do you believe the electric vehicle 
charging stations should be allowed at park and rides and rest 
areas to reduce range anxiety for highway users and incentivize 
electric vehicle owners to use transit?
    Secretary Buttigieg. We will certainly take a look at that. 
Broadly speaking, we cannot have the kind of electrification of 
vehicle transportation we hope to achieve in this country if we 
don't have a robust charging network, and especially as the 
costs come down and, increasingly, there becomes no premium or 
even a savings for a consumer buying an electric car compared 
to a comparable gasoline fuel car.
    The next biggest reason somebody would hesitate to adopt is 
that factor you mentioned, is the range anxiety where you are 
just not sure that there is going to be enough charging 
capacity between where you are and where you need to go. And it 
is why the President's commitment to make sure we have more 
charging stations, I think, is an important one. And in terms 
of how and where they are deployed, there are obviously a lot 
of different ways to approach it. But I would welcome learning 
more about the initiative you are describing and working 
together on that.
    Mrs. Napolitano. I would like to work with your staff on 
that, sir.
    The public rest areas along the highway are heavily used by 
low-income and minority families who can't afford plane tickets 
or Amtrak [inaudible.]
    Mr. DeFazio. If you are talking, Grace, we can't hear you. 
Grace, you got to keep your audio on.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Again.
    Mr. DeFazio. Yeah, keep going.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Do you believe EV charging stations at 
these rest areas could help pay for rest area maintenance 
costs?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I certainly think it is important that 
we have healthy revenue sources for the maintenance of these 
rest areas. I know there are a lot of different ways to do it, 
and I am certainly open in any area where there is a shortfall 
to looking at how we can support making sure there is healthy 
revenue.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. And there is a provision 
in H.R. 2 that I authored that would help pay for the 
installation of protective shields in buses to prevent assault 
on busdrivers. If it would have passed, it would have helped 
COVID protection. What is the Department doing to prevent 
assault on transit workers?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you for raising this. Transit 
workers are so important to our communities, to our economy, 
and we rely on them. They are an example of essential workers 
and yet have often been mistreated, sometimes mistreated by 
those who are unwilling to respond to the mandates that are 
intended to keep both those workers and the traveling public 
safe. And, you know, this shouldn't have to be their job on top 
of everything else that they are in charge of.
    So we are trying to make sure that we are backing them up. 
And this was part of the intent and effect of the President's 
Executive order, which in turn directed us to make sure that 
those mask mandates have clear guidance and Federal backing. 
And we are going to continue to do everything we can to support 
those workers.
    And I want to use this opportunity just to call on the 
public to support those transit workers, where from a bus 
operator to someone in a subway, and for that matter flight 
attendants, too, who deserve respect and who are only asking 
people to comply with Federal guidance.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I just specifically asked about the 
bus shields because they protect them not only against assaults 
but against COVID, sir. But the next item I have on--and I 
better hurry up. The Foothill Transit is the bus transit 
provider in my district and is at the forefront of installing 
electric buses. They put in service the first fast-charging 
electric buses 6 years ago, and they plan to put in service the 
first double-decker electric buses in the near future, made by 
Alexander Dennis in Indiana. And I am forwarding a letter to 
you by Foothill Transit inviting you to participate in the 
launch of these new electric vehicles. I would hope you would 
accept and look forward to it, sir.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thanks for the invitation. That 
sounds like something I would love to kick the proverbial tires 
on. So I hope I can get a look.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady.
    Mr. Massie?
    OK. Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Secretary. Congratulations on your 
confirmation. I want to talk to you about, basically, something 
probably a little bit uncomfortable, but I think we need to get 
to it, so we all understand where we stand here. Starting in 
2007, you worked as a consultant for McKinsey & Company for 
clients including two nonprofit environmentalist groups, the 
National Resources Defense Council and Energy Foundation. The 
close ties between McKinsey and the Chinese Communist Party, as 
you know, have been widely reported. Both the NRDC and the 
Energy Foundation have extensive operations in China that 
require approval and cooperation with the CCP. That is the 
Communist Party, as you know.
    Now, your background raises, I think, reasonable concerns 
about why you have in the past and, in some cases, now, seem to 
be echoing the Chinese Communist Party line on the climate 
crisis that the West, and only the West, needs to rapidly 
decarbonize based on doomsday projections that have been 
rejected by the IPCC itself while the Chinese Communist Party 
continues to build out coal plants and ramp up admissions. 
Unfortunately, these ties to the CCP and concerns about what 
many see as parroting of the CCP climate messaging group is not 
unique to yourself, Mr. Secretary. Actually, many consider the 
vast majority of the Biden administration are involved in the 
same thing.
    Your insistence and the entire Biden administration's 
insistence for us to transit immediately to electric vehicles, 
often slave-labor-built intermittent energy sources and road 
dyes, are blatantly against the interest of American people, 
and I think can easily and justifiably be described as a China-
first environmental energy and transportation policy. You know, 
it is great when you have public transit and you want to use 
that, but many people want the privacy and the autonomy and the 
flexibility to drive their own vehicles.
    Mr. Secretary, the American people, quite honestly, are fed 
up with anybody's China-first policy. How can you assure this 
committee and the American people that you and the 
administration that you work for truly have the best interest 
of the American people in mind when oftentimes actions and 
rhetoric seem to support what many of us feel is a genocidal 
regime residing in Beijing?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I appreciate the question and 
the chance to be abundantly clear about why it is important to 
confront climate change. The main reason I think it is 
important to confront climate change is because of the 
destruction of American lives, the destruction of American 
property, and the destruction of American jobs that will take 
place if we fail to meet this moment.
    I am troubled by the fact that China is not rising to meet 
the moment at the pace that I think the world needs. But, of 
course, I am an American policymaker, and so my involvement is 
on what we, the American people, can do to make sure we are 
leading the world and not playing catchup when it comes to the 
climate imperative.
    I believe that climate change is real. I believe that 
climate change is caused by greenhouse gases, and I recognize 
that the single biggest emitter of the greenhouse gases in the 
United States is the transportation sector. Thankfully, that 
means that the transportation sector gets to be the biggest 
part of the solution. And when people are working on things 
like, well, let's say electric vehicles, I want those to be 
American workers. I want those to be American union workers who 
are earning union wages in places like my Indiana hometown, the 
place that grew up around the auto industry.
    There is not going to be a future for our country if we 
don't get ahead of climate challenges that face us. I 
appreciate you referring to work that I did in a much more 
junior time in my career on energy efficiency. That report is 
publicly available. It was funded by a consortium of American 
investor-owned utilities, environmental groups like the Natural 
Resources Defense Council, the U.S. Government, I believe the 
EPA, and possibly the Department of Energy, I don't remember. 
It was on the subject of energy efficiency, which is something 
I also consider important, but it is a little bit outside of my 
lane here at the Department of Transportation.
    If there are other views on how to make sure we can be 
carbon neutral by 2050 than the views you have heard from this 
administration, now would be a great time to get them on the 
table so that we can work together before it is too late.
    Mr. Perry. I appreciate your answer.
    And in the remaining time, I just would urge you, look, 
America wants to be first at all the good things that we love. 
We don't want to be first if it imperils us vis-a-vis our 
adversary, which is the Chinese Communist Party.
    And I thank you for being here today.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
    Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Cohen.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    I am here. Can you hear me?
    Mr. DeFazio. Go ahead.
    Mr. Cohen. Great.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming.
    And thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, for 
inviting the Secretary.
    I guess you will be Secretary Pete?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I will always answer to that.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you. You were a great candidate for 
President. I know you will be a great Secretary.
    I have got many issues that I deal with. We have a pipeline 
in Memphis that is going through an African-American 
neighborhood on the path of least resistance. It is going over 
an aquifer that supplies water for the city of Memphis. And I 
[inaudible] by your testimony before the Senate when you talked 
about the historical discrimination against minority 
communities with highways. It also happens with pipelines. The 
Byhalia pipeline is a problem in our city. Complete Streets is 
an issue that I champion, and I know you do also. Ed Markey and 
I have a bill, and I look forward to working with you on that.
    Memphis, unfortunately, is third in the country in 
pedestrian deaths, and that needs to stop. And we have got an 
underrides bill that will protect people from trucks on the 
highways, and it needs to be implemented to make people more 
safe on the highways.
    But another issue I have worked on that I want to deal with 
on this call is airplane and passenger seats and safety. I had 
placed with the help of Adam Kinzinger, who was my cosponsor, a 
bill, but the acronym is SEAT, Seat Egress in Air Travel, or 
the SEAT Act, into the 2018 FAA reauthorization bill. The SEAT 
Act directed the FAA to establish minimum seat size and 
distance between rows of seats, pitch, on commercial aircraft 
to protect the flying public. After dragging their feet for a 
year after this was placed in the bill, during which time I 
wrote and demanded action--it was really 16 months--the FAA 
finally conducted 12 days of evacuation testing in Oklahoma in 
November of 2019. That is 16 months ago to determine whether 
planes need new dimensions to improve passenger safety. They 
have not released their results in all of this time. I fear 
this is due to embarrassment over the results of the study or 
flaws in the study. And I will be clear it will show that there 
were defects and contradictions.
    Before the FAA began its testing, I raised several issues 
with the administration, the previous administration, about 
those tests being too narrow a sample that it wasn't 
representative of the flying public.
    I am under the impression that the FAA did not use--did not 
use--people over the age of 60--that is a lot of people--
individuals under the age of 18, difficulty in getting in and 
out of planes and understanding instructions, panicking 
possibly, lap children, parents seated separately from their 
children, individuals with disabilities, service animals, 
carry-on baggage, individuals with wheelchairs, significantly 
overweight individuals, individuals whose primary language was 
not English. This group of people who they did not include in 
their study, that sounds to me like a representative sample of 
the people that fly on airplanes, fly on planes now: people 
over 60, people taking kids, people with disabilities and 
carry-on baggage.
    Mr. Secretary, can you commit to verifying in writing if 
the FAA included any of those demographics in their study?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, I am aware of the authorization 
which required this study. And I know that the FAA conducted 
this research. I have requested a look at the research that has 
been put together so far so we can get to it to my office and 
understand what is going on there. And I will make sure to keep 
you abreast of our findings.
    Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Cohen, you still have 1 minute. Mr. Cohen? 
I guess we lost Mr. Cohen. Then, we would move on to Rodney 
Davis.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will gladly take Mr. 
Cohen's minute, if you would let me.
    Mr. DeFazio. No. No. Just go, Rodney, go. You have got 5.
    Mr. Davis. All right. Well, thanks anyway, sir.
    Hey, Mr. Secretary, great to see you.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Same here.
    Mr. Davis. I appreciated our conversation earlier this week 
also. A couple of issues I wanted to bring up. First off, as 
more States move to legalize recreational marijuana, I want to 
ensure that our law enforcement officials have a reliable means 
to determine impairment. NHTSA recommended continued research 
into the development of a standard, but we are seeing that 
there are barriers currently in place across the Federal 
Government that limit access for researchers attempting to 
solve this problem.
    I do appreciate Chairman DeFazio for working with me the 
last Congress to include language in H.R. 2 that directs the 
Federal Government under your leadership to examine these 
barriers and provide recommendations on how to increase 
opportunities for research. Will you commit to work with me and 
this committee to encourage research into a marijuana 
impairment standard?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I would welcome an opportunity to work 
with you on that. I will sound like a broken record when I say 
that safety is a top priority of this Department. And, 
obviously, as we have a lot of evolution on the legal front, 
we've got to make sure that we are keeping up and getting ahead 
of any issues that impact roadway safety.
    Mr. Davis. Excellent. Thank you, sir. Also, a transit 
agency in my district, Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District, 
and many others across the country, they are utilizing hydrogen 
fuel cell electric bus technology as they transition their 
fleets to zero-emission propulsion. While I appreciate the role 
battery electric buses will play in our future, I want to 
communicate the importance of hydrogen, as Congress and the 
administration makes investments in zero-emission buses and 
also infrastructure. Can you speak to whether zero-emission 
hydrogen fuel cell electric buses will be a priority for the 
Department?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I think this is a great time to take 
that up. As you know, in most areas, the electric technology 
has been more widely adopted, but there is a lot of promise on 
hydrogen technology too. And we should recognize that what is 
right for a bus may be different in one region than another, 
and it is also different than personally owned cars. And so we 
should encourage that whatever gets us toward zero emissions in 
the most efficient way possible, and to the extent that 
hydrogen is part of that story, we would love to be working on 
that as well.
    Mr. Davis. Absolutely. Thank you for that, sir.
    Mr. Secretary, you and I have had discussions regarding my 
bill the One Federal Decision Act that streamlines the NEPA 
process. It is common sense and ensures our permitting process 
is still environmentally friendly. At the beginning of last 
Congress, we had Mayor Garcetti, Governor Walz, and my good 
friend former Secretary Ray LaHood before this committee where 
they discussed difficulties with the Federal permitting 
process.
    Can you discuss your experience with the process as the 
mayor of South Bend, and if you will commit to working with us 
to put in place some commonsense reforms?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, so Federal permitting is 
certainly part of the life of, I think, any mayor who is 
seeking to improve infrastructure in their community. We have 
certainly experienced that in South Bend. It was especially 
relevant because we were contemplating something that I know is 
now my successor's issue, which is enhancing electric light 
rail or electric passenger rail right between our community and 
Chicago, and getting through those processes, contemplating the 
environmental review, can certainly be a source of complication 
or extend timelines or costs.
    Now, of course, we also know that there is a good reason 
for a lot of these rules. But any time there is something 
duplicative in there or something can be done in a more 
efficient way, that can bring a lot of relief to local 
communities. So I do want to note that 95 percent of projects 
move through with a categorical exclusion. And 1 percent move 
through with that full environmental impact statement which is 
the kind that creates the most work. But that 1 percent is very 
important for the communities that are working on them.
    And so I do see a lot of opportunity here. And I know this 
is an interagency conversation as well. Executive Order 13990 
specifically directs OMB and CEQ to take a look at whether the 
replacement order ought to be issued from the One Federal 
Decision policy. And that is something we certainly will want 
to be tracking closely so that we can find ways to make sure 
that those Federal dollars are spent responsibly but also as 
efficiently and as promptly as they be can be.
    Mr. Davis. Well, thank you for that. I look forward to 
working with you on these issues. And, lastly, sir, as we spoke 
earlier this week, I had language included in the 2018 FAA 
reauthorization bill that emphasized the difference between 
microdrones and more traditional drones, in particular the fact 
that microdrones, they pose less risk in our airspace than the 
larger ones. I just want to know if you will commit to work 
with me to ensure that drone-related regulations recognize this 
difference and really begin to treat microdrones accordingly 
when it comes to pertinent and other regulations that drones 
are subject to.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I certainly look forward to working 
with you on that. We know that there is a huge range in the 
size and the characteristics and the flight characteristics of 
different kinds of drones. And as much as we reasonably can, we 
want to make sure that our policies and our strategies can tell 
the difference.
    Mr. Davis. Great. Hey, I appreciate your time.
    Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
    I will note that the FAA has not conducted the microdrone 
ingestion test on a jet engine yet, which I asked for almost 4 
years ago, and the engineers and simulations at Virginia Tech 
think it will cause catastrophic failure. So we need to be 
careful about that.
    Mr. Sires?
    Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, welcome, and thank you for meeting with us 
today. Mr. Secretary, I represent a district in New Jersey 
where there is a lot of old infrastructure. We have two 
tunnels, two commuter tunnels that are over 100 years old. 
During the Sandy Superstorm, a lot of the saltwater got into 
these tunnels, and now the saltwater is eating the cement. I am 
concerned that, if we don't address this issue, it is going to 
be catastrophic. This corridor serves a region that is home to 
17 percent of the U.S. population and 97 Fortune 500 company 
headquarters. The area also contributes 20 percent of the 
national GDP.
    In my home State, the State of New York, the port authority 
is ready to move and work with you. So I am hopeful that we can 
get some sort of a commitment from the administration to 
partner with us to get this done. So I was just wondering what 
your thoughts are on that.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, I share 
your sense of urgency about the Gateway and related projects. 
This is a regional issue but one of national significance 
because, if there were a failure in one of those tunnels, the 
entire U.S. economy would feel it. So I can tell you that the 
Federal Railroad Administration and the Federal Transit 
Administration are working with New Jersey Transit and the Port 
Authority of New York and New Jersey, as well as with Amtrak 
and the Gateway Development Commission, to develop the next 
administrative draft of the environmental impact statement, 
which is, as we were discussing in the last question, a big 
part of what needs to be completed in order to get there. That 
means reviewing anything that might have changed since the 
draft EIS was issued in 2017 and coordinating with other 
Federal resource and regulatory agencies, like the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, as well as the State agencies that might 
have jurisdiction.
    Concurrent with what is going on on that environmental 
side, the FTA is working closely with project sponsors as it 
advances through the Capital Investment Grant Program process 
prescribed in law which is obviously an important part of the 
picture when it comes to funding. There is still a lot that has 
to happen there including identifying the party that will carry 
out environmental mitigations resolving concerns about the 
financial plan and demonstrating the legal, technical, and 
financial capacity that is required by law in order to be 
eligible. But I can tell you that the FTA staff is committed to 
working with partners to resolve that concern and again 
recognize why this is so important for your constituents and 
really for the region and for the entire country.
    Mr. Sires. Yes, not only is the tunnel 100 years old, but 
all the infrastructure leading to the tunnel is also 100 years 
old. And we have one particular bridge that we are working on 
with the State where when you open it and you close it, it 
doesn't close properly, and you have to use a sledge hammer to 
line up the rails.
    Can you imagine this if this goes? And that is the main 
bridge that leads all these commuter trains into these tunnels. 
So I hope that we can work together and build a nice 
relationship. Maybe you can come to the district, and I will 
give you a sledge hammer so you can see what happens to the 
bridge when it doesn't close. So, as you can see, all the modes 
of transportation that I have in my district, I think I have 
just about every kind of transportation there is in America in 
my district.
    So thank you for your commitment. I hope that your 
administration will see the importance of these tunnels. And I 
was just wondering, has there been any discussion on any 
infrastructure bill that is going to come out of the 
administration yet?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, I certainly think this is the kind 
of critical infrastructure that has been allowed to be 
disinvested for so long that is on our mind as the 
administration is shaping infrastructure priorities. And it is 
certainly something that is coming up every time I speak to 
leaders from New Jersey, from New York, and more broadly as we 
think about our national policy.
    I would welcome a chance to take you up on that invitation 
to see it for myself. I am not sure it is wise to trust me with 
a sledge hammer in my hands, but I will do everything I can to 
learn about the infrastructure issue there.
    Mr. Sires. Great. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
    Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Katko?
    John? Mr. Katko?
    OK. Dr. Babin?
    Dr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 
Ranking Member Graves. And I also want to say thank you to you, 
Mr. Secretary, for coming on with us and meeting with us on 
these very important issues.
    President Biden has made it his priority to accelerate the 
adoption of electric vehicles nationwide. And while I think 
that we can all agree that fuel economy is very important and 
electric vehicles will play an important role in expanding the 
choices of cars that are available to customers, I am concerned 
about the impact that some of President Biden's proposals may 
have on my constituents in southeast Texas. My district is 
roughly from Houston over to Louisiana.
    Last Congress, there were several hearings held in both 
Chambers with witnesses underscoring how dependent that the 
United States is on China for acquiring their supply of 
critical rare earth minerals that are needed for producing 
electric vehicle batteries. And so, with that, I would like to 
ask you several short-answer questions, if you don't mind.
    First off, California Governor Gavin Newsom had set a goal 
of halting the sale of internal combustion engines in 
California by 2035. And I was wondering if the administration, 
the Biden administration, do you all support the goal of 
banning the sale of traditional vehicles?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I have not heard of anything to that 
effect at the national or Federal level. Although, I would note 
that a lot of industry leaders, American auto companies are 
moving in that direction already. You see the announcements 
from players like GM talking about their fleets being all 
electric by that time. So I have not heard of that in a 
mandatory context, but that certainly seems to be where the 
U.S. auto industry is headed.
    Dr. Babin. OK. Thank you. Number two, do you believe that 
the term ``zero-emission vehicle'' must include a full life-
cycle analysis and not just an examination of the vehicle's 
tailpipe emissions?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I think it is wise to look at 
both. Of course, the tailpipe emissions are what accounts for 
the most immediate impact coming from the vehicle. But whether 
we are talking about the auto context or what is going on in 
the sustainable aviation fuels or others, certainly makes sense 
to look at the entire picture.
    Dr. Babin. Absolutely. Thank you.
    And given the issue surrounding the solvency within the 
Highway Trust Fund and that electric vehicle drivers use our 
bridges and roads while not paying taxes to support this 
infrastructure, like those who do drive combustion engines, do 
you support a policy for electric vehicles to pay their fair 
share into the Highway Trust Fund, especially given the fact 
that electric vehicles weigh more than their internal 
combustion engine equivalent? And so do you support a vehicle-
miles traveled, a VMT plan? If so, what would that rollout look 
like for VMT?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, I am very open to that, ultimately 
for the user-pays principle to be intact. As more and more 
drivers are driving electric vehicles, obviously, electric 
vehicles ought to be charged, too, in some way, shape, or form. 
We have heard a lot of different ways to do it. Some of them 
are comparable to things like the electronic logging devices 
that are common on trucks, but there are concerns about 
technology and privacy there. So I think we've got a little 
work to do. There are pilots increasingly underway. We should 
learn from them and continue to explore whether this is the 
best way to face with that user-pays principle.
    Dr. Babin. All right. Thank you very much. Do you support 
providing maximum flexibility to State departments of 
transportation to determine where funding is best spent to 
benefit their transportation systems? And will you support 
funding for proven core DOT programs and letting the States 
decide how best to accomplish these goals of these new programs 
without the burden of new set-asides?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I certainly have a lot of regard 
for State-level decisionmaking. I will add to that local 
decisionmaking because I have learned it is sometimes a mistake 
to assume that a State authority and a local community are on 
the same page. I view our role as pursuing the broadest policy 
goals that we have at the Federal level and that, as much as 
possible, encouraging States, localities, and other bodies to 
innovate, to meet those goals in the best way. And that is how 
we have tried to tune the early issues of our discretionary 
grants, again, making the goals clear, but challenging those 
local communities and other applicants to explain how they seek 
to get there.
    Dr. Babin. Glad to hear you talk about the locals. And you 
as a former mayor, I am a former mayor as well, so I appreciate 
that.
    Secretary Buttigieg. All right.
    Dr. Babin. How do you plan on addressing the cyber and data 
privacy concerns that continue to remain a threat from foreign 
governments like China?
    Secretary Buttigieg. This is a----
    Mr. DeFazio. Answer very quickly, please.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I will be brief. It is major strategic 
concern, of course, not limited to transportation. And so we 
need a whole-of-Government approach to cybersecurity, and we 
will do everything we can to make sure DOT is at the table to 
be part of that.
    Dr. Babin. Thank you very much.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
    Mr. Garamendi?
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I am on here. I want to 
really thank you, and, particularly, I want to commend the 
Secretary for being one of the very most informed witnesses we 
have had for a long, long time. You really are on top of all of 
these issues.
    When I ran for Congress in 2009, the Oakland Bay Bridge was 
built with Chinese steel. And I made the Make It in America 
policy an integral part of my work over the last decade. I've 
got to tell you how thrilled I was on the fifth day in office 
when President Biden issued an Executive order that American 
taxpayer money would be used to buy American-made goods and 
services. Obviously, the transportation sector is one of the 
major areas in which American taxpayer dollars will find their 
way into the economy or into the Chinese or foreign economies. 
So my series of questions really deal with this issue of Buy 
American, Make It in America.
    In 1983, the Federal Highway Administration issued a very 
broad waiver that basically set aside all of the Buy American 
provisions for the Federal Highway Administration. That waiver 
is still in existence.
    And so my question to you, Mr. Secretary, is, will you look 
at this waiver and, essentially, junk it and allow the 
President's policy of American taxpayer money being used to buy 
American products, services, and goods?
    Secretary Buttigieg. We will be taking a hard look at it. I 
appreciate you raising the importance of Made in America, Buy 
it in America. And the President's Executive order directs 
every agency to assess any longstanding or nationwide waivers, 
like the 1983 Federal Highway Administration waiver you are 
describing. So we will be reviewing that, as well as all the 
other existing waivers, and making sure that we are doing 
everything we can in keeping with the spirit of the President's 
order.
    Mr. Garamendi. I am all interested in spirit, but I am much 
more interested in what actually happens. When the rubber meets 
the road, is that road built with American products and 
services? So, yes, we are going to be looking at this all the 
way through.
    Also, the Department of Transportation is far more than 
just highways. We have talked about many of those elements here 
today. Waivers are found in virtually every single aspect of 
your work. You mentioned a moment ago that you would look at 
all the waivers. I assume by ``all'' you mean every part of 
your Department where there may be a waiver where American 
taxpayer money is finding its way into the pockets of 
manufacturers and suppliers in other countries. Is that the 
case?
    Secretary Buttigieg. That's right. You know, we know that 
there are similar but not identical requirements across our 
different parts of the Department. So we've got to look at 
every piece of it. And that is going to be part of our internal 
review.
    Mr. Garamendi. As you undoubtedly heard from the chairman's 
opening statement, this committee is way into this issue. We 
are continuing to write further restrictions and requirements. 
We will continue to do that. So we would expect that in your 
role as Secretary you will make sure that American taxpayer 
money is spent here in America.
    There is a whole series of other issues that I was going to 
ask. Most of those have already been asked with regard to 
resiliency and the GPS system. Thank you for your attention to 
that.
    Beyond that, I really look forward to working with you. 
And, once again, I am very impressed by your extensive 
understanding of the issues. I don't think you have missed a 
beat on any question that we put forward. And I don't think I 
can come up with one that would stump you at this point.
    I look forward to working with you. Thank you so very much 
for being with us today, and I look forward to working with you 
in the future.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back my time.
    Mr. DeFazio. Well, I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Graves from Louisiana.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, I am traveling on one of these interstates 
right now. I want to congratulate you for your position, and I 
hope you are finding Washington, DC, as hospitable as South 
Bend. I represent Baton Rouge, Louisiana, among other places, 
which, like South Bend, is on a river [inaudible] but there is 
a reason for that. No one would ever model after this one 
system, but [inaudible].
    Mr. DeFazio. Garret, you are breaking up. You lost your 
audio. I can't hear you. Hopefully, he will get to a spot where 
he gets better connectivity.
    Mr. Rouzer?
    Mr. Rouzer. Here I am, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me?
    Mr. DeFazio. Yes. Go for it.
    Mr. Rouzer. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate 
that.
    Mr. Secretary, congratulations on your nomination and 
confirmation. I really look forward to working with you in your 
new capacity. And as my colleague Congressman Garamendi said, I 
am quite impressed with your array of knowledge and 
preparedness for today.
    I have a particular issue that not many people are really 
all that aware of, the fact that U.S. airlines refused to 
transport animals intended for medical research. And, of 
course, they have no issue transporting those same animals for 
other purposes. You know, almost every drug, treatment, medical 
device, diagnostic tool, or cure that has been developed relies 
on animal models, animal research, including COVID-19 vaccines.
    The U.S. Government, as you know, strictly regulates animal 
research but requires animal testing before a new drug is 
allowed to go to human trial. That is part of the requirement 
of the FDA. So, in 2018, the National Association for 
Biomedical Research filed a complaint with the Department of 
Transportation challenging the policies of these airlines that 
refused to transport animals intended for medical research.
    And I just want to know if you are up to speed on this, and 
what the Department plans to do moving forward? Because one of 
the key issues here, China and other countries are making 
greater advancements scientifically because of this policy, 
basically. And, of course, in China and elsewhere, they don't 
have anywhere close to the number of rules and regulations and 
the strict safeguards to protect animals and their welfare as 
we do here in the United States. And so this is really an 
important issue from a standpoint of national security, from a 
standpoint of scientific advancement and being on the cutting 
edge in this country versus losing pace with China and other 
countries.
    And so I really hope that the DOT, under your leadership, 
will take a good look at this and put in place guidelines so 
that the airlines will have what they need and understanding 
that they need to be transporting these animals just like they 
do other animals. So I am just curious if you are up to speed 
on that, and if you have any thoughts on that front, and what 
you might be planning to do moving forward.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. I think I am not as 
versed on this issue as you are, but I am aware of the 
complaint that was raised by the National Association for 
Biomedical Research, and I know that it raises issues that are 
very important and could have very significant implications for 
research institutions, for airlines, and others. And one 
indication of just how complex and important the issue is, is 
that the Department so far has received about 24,000 
submissions for comment from research organizations, advocacy 
organizations, and others. Those submissions are raising a 
number of complex facts, legal arguments, and policy issues 
that would have to be considered by the Department before we 
can render a decision on the merits of the concerns.
    So what I can tell you now is that the Department is 
working diligently to work through all of those submissions and 
complete a review. And as soon as that assessment and review 
can be responsibly completed, then a decision will be 
forthcoming.
    Mr. Rouzer. Well, I think it is important to note that the 
public comment docket closed December 2018, and so this has 
been a consistent problem, if you will. And I just think from 
a, as I mentioned earlier, from a standpoint of cutting-edge 
research that is necessary for the cures that we need to be 
bringing to the market, certainly, COVID-19 is a great example 
of why you have got to have animal research. Obviously, you are 
not going to put a vaccine in an arm that you have not tested 
thoroughly. And you've got to have primates in order to do 
that, in order to get that type of testing to get the results 
so that you know it is safe for human use. And so it is just a 
critical element of medical research. And we already have a 
significant decrease in the number of primates that are 
available for medical research. And this desire among the 
airlines to avoid transportation of these animals for such 
purpose is a real problem, and it is a growing problem by the 
day. So I really appreciate you taking a good look at that. And 
I hope that we can work together to make America the number one 
place to do research and to really make some progress on that.
    Mr. DeFazio. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Rouzer. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
thank you for hosting today's hearing.
    And I also want to thank you, Secretary Buttigieg, for your 
testimony today.
    In your view, sir, should the Federal Government 
incentivize car and truck purchasers, including fleet 
operators, to purchase electric vehicles, and if so, how should 
they be incentivized?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, it is certainly a policy goal of 
the administration to encourage the adoption of electric 
vehicles. As you know, we have had some policies in that regard 
for some time, such as the tax credit. But the tax credit is 
limited based on how many vehicles are purchased from an 
individual automaker. And now would be a good time to look at 
what adjustments could be made.
    I will say that, over time, I think, eventually, the 
pricing on the electric vehicles gets better and better to 
where it becomes a financial win regardless because of the 
lower cost of maintenance and fuel. But in many categories of 
vehicle, we are not there yet. And I would say, at least 
speaking for myself and this Department, we are very open to a 
number of different approaches that can help us meet that 
policy goal.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
    Since 1982, highways have received approximately 80 percent 
of surface transportation funding and transit has received 
approximately 20 percent. Do you and the administration believe 
we can meet our transportation needs, respond to the climate 
crisis, and connect all Americans to jobs and services by 
continuing the way we currently distribute Federal funding for 
highways and transit, often referred to as the 80/20 split? And 
do you support revisiting the 80/20 split to ensure that 
funding goes to moving all Americans, especially our most 
vulnerable communities who rely on transit?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, what we know is that there are a 
lot of different dimensions to getting around for different 
people. And for some, that involves a privately owned vehicle; 
for some, that involves transit; and for many, it involves a 
combination of those things. But I believe by investing in 
transit-oriented development and, for that matter, rural main 
streets in the right balance, we can support people getting to 
go where they need to be in any number of ways.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Can you look at the issue of the 
80/20 split to determine whether or not it is still the best 
practice for America as we move forward?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I would welcome an opportunity to take 
a look at that and work with you on that.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
    The Federal Government has long maintained the position to 
not provide operating costs for transit agencies that often 
serve our most vulnerable communities. Do you support long-term 
Federal operating support for transit agencies?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I do want to take a look at that. As 
you know, the COVID relief that Congress authorized did support 
those operating costs in a way that I think was welcomed by 
transit agencies across the country. But as you point out, that 
has not been customarily the way the Federal Government 
supports transit. And if all of the support is in the capital 
direction and not in the operating direction, sometimes that 
can actually create an incentive to take on equipment that then 
raises operating costs, and it can be a bit of a cycle that is 
a problem.
    So I do think that any time there is a reauthorization or a 
revisiting of the congressional authority, it is a good time to 
look at that.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. As the recent Amazon 
Headquarters 2 search highlighted, businesses want to be 
located in walkable transit-connected communities. Last week, a 
coalition of local chambers of commerce wrote to this committee 
and made it clear that businesses want the Federal 
transportation program to invest in projects that improve 
people's access to jobs and services, not increase vehicle 
speeds. Do you agree that safer, walkable, transit-friendly 
communities support economic growth and business creation? And 
as a former mayor, can you describe the economic impacts of 
investments in complete and safe streets?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Absolutely. In my own experience as 
mayor, we decided to upgrade what had been a two-way or a pair 
of one-way, basically, highways that just blasted vehicles 
through the middle of our downtown. And what we found is that, 
when we adjusted that, still supported car travel, but not all 
about speed and making it just safer to walk or bicycle or be 
there, the business community responded, and we saw a lot of 
economic growth. So it is an important principle. I think 
employers and employees increasingly expect it. And it has got 
to be part of the picture as we think about our infrastructure 
for the future.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. We are going to return 
to Mr. Graves, and then he will have 4 minutes and 30 seconds, 
and, hopefully, he has better connectivity.
    Mr. Graves?
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 
Chairman, I am sorry about that. We just got internet in 
Louisiana, and I thought my cord was longer.
    Mr. Secretary, again, congratulations to you. I look 
forward to working with you. First question, I want to follow 
up with something Congressman Babin and Congressman Davis 
brought up related to different types of energy technologies. 
You have talked a good bit about electric charging stations. 
Why is it that the Department would choose a technology as 
opposed to letting innovators innovate? As you know, charging 
stations would largely relegate our future of cars to only 
electric technology, and at the same time, the generation of 
that electricity may be dirty, which may not actually advance 
our low-emission goals.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, it is a great point that, you 
know, the cleanliness of an electric car is only as good as the 
electricity going into it. And that is why we recognize this is 
not a one-Department-at-a-time kind of issue, and we really 
need to partner with the Department of Energy to make sure that 
renewable energy is adopted and we have a grid that can support 
electric charging stations.
    I guess, in my view, there is a policy role here, though, 
in the same way that, I think, many in Congress believe, or at 
least historically have believed that the U.S. ought to have a 
policy when it comes to access to fossil fuel energy and 
engagement in what is going on with oil and gas, that similarly 
the U.S. has a policy interest in the adoption of electric 
vehicles.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you.
    Mr. Secretary, I just want to remind you that the United 
States has reduced emissions in the energy sector more than the 
next 12 emissions-reducing countries combined. And we have done 
that by being able to continue utilizing conventional fuels and 
using them in a cleaner manner. I think it would be a mistake 
to box out any type of fuels. And, again, I think we need to be 
letting the innovators do what they do. And I would urge you to 
consider that as you move forward.
    Second issue, I want to jump in quickly into the aviation 
space. Obviously, with the proliferation of drones and unmanned 
systems, huge potential for the United States. We passed 
legislation that has a lot of requirements that helps to lay 
the groundwork for that technology. And I just urge you to keep 
that on the front burner. But a letter that Ranking Member Sam 
Graves and I sent to you recently regarding EASA and some 
comments that they made regarding effectively not complying 
with the bilateral agreement on aircraft certification. We had 
requested that you just engage EASA. I don't know if you had a 
chance to look at that at all, but effectively they were not 
giving, I guess, much integrity to the U.S. certification 
process, despite the changes Chairman DeFazio, Chairman Larsen, 
myself, and Ranking Member Graves recently made. It raised 
strong concerns that they would operate outside that bilateral 
agreement. Again, I just wanted to ask if you could please 
engage there.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, we are in receipt of your letter. 
I saw the comments from EASA, and we are going to continue to 
take steps as appropriate to make sure that those agreements 
that are in place are upheld because it is so important for the 
U.S. to be the unquestioned global leader in aviation safety.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I 
appreciate that.
    The last issue I had, we sent a letter last week, and I 
don't know if you have had a chance to review it or your team, 
related to the INFRA program. Many of us on this committee 
spent a lot of blood, sweat, and tears putting the INFRA 
program together and think it is really important, it is 
foundational to some of our major transportation projects 
across the United States.
    I personally worked with Chairman DeFazio and others to 
make sure that we had appropriate criteria, objectives, and 
goals included in what INFRA was trying to advance. We included 
a number of things that I think was very important: efficiency 
in the transportation system, mobility, national energy 
security, resiliency, and others.
    I was disheartened when I read the press release coming 
from the Department of Transportation which indicated that 
climate change, racial equality, and environmental justice were 
the priorities. Those are not in the statute, yet the statutory 
objectives weren't mentioned.
    I just wanted to get your feedback and understanding. It 
almost seemed like there were folks that were trying to hijack 
the program from the statutory requirements and just asking if 
you could comment on objectives there.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Sure. So, in our view, what we are 
doing with INFRA is completely consistent with statute. Now, of 
course, the statute lays a framework, and then the Department 
has added or elaborated or modified its own specific evaluation 
criteria consistent with those statutory requirements, as we 
have in every round of INFRA since the inception of the 
program. And I think one reason why it is important to have 
climate in there is because of the statutory mention of 
resilience in the environment. So we really are trying to track 
that but, of course, doing it in a way that is also consistent 
with the policy goals of the administration. It just puts a 
little bit of specificity on the bones of what is there in the 
statutory language.
    Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, gentlemen.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I want 
to reinvite you to Louisiana and yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
    Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Carson.
    Mr. Carson. Thank you, Chairman.
    Thank you, Secretary Buttigieg, for coming before our 
committee today. As a fellow Hoosier, I am very pleased, and we 
are very proud to have you leading the Department of 
Transportation. I am looking forward to working with you.
    As you know, Mr. Secretary, I represent Beech Grove, 
Indiana, which includes the largest passenger rail maintenance 
facility in the country. The work being done at this facility 
is very critical to the safe and efficient operation of our 
rail system.
    I continue to be concerned, Mr. Secretary, about plans from 
the previous administration to cut back or outsource the 
operations and personnel at maintenance facilities. I know your 
plans will be to move in a different direction, or one that 
will strengthen our ability to maintain and improve passenger 
rail service, and the maintenance needed to keep our fleets 
running safely and smoothly. What are your thoughts, Mr. 
Secretary, and plans for rail maintenance facilities, 
particularly addressing the possibility of outsourcing this 
work?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thanks for your advocacy for 
rail broadly and for these maintenance facilities and workers 
specifically. You know, again, let me begin with the basic 
commitment of the Biden-Harris administration, something so 
important to the President, which is that every step that we 
take in our transportation policy is about creating and 
sustaining good-paying American jobs. And we know a lot of 
those good-paying American jobs are those that you are speaking 
about and are right there in the Hoosier State in maintenance. 
And any policies that continue to develop have to be consistent 
with that.
    We will look in more detail at the outlook as a new 
administration comes in and assesses the plans that have been 
made on the rail front. But my hope as we are potentially at 
the doorstep of a next great rail revolution would be that this 
will only increase the opportunity that exists for great-paying 
American and union jobs when it comes to maintenance and the 
whole of the enterprise when it comes to rail and U.S. 
transportation more broadly.
    Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Chairman, I yield back.
    Ms. Norton [presiding]. The gentleman yields.
    We go next to Mr. Katko.
    Mr. Katko. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And, Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you. And, as you 
know, we met in the White House in the Oval Office. We spoke 
for about 1\1/2\ hours in that meeting with the President and 
several Republicans and Democrats. And I know you got the 
message then about the need for bipartisanship. And that has 
been the hallmark of this committee.
    And, lately, I think we have kind of veered a little bit 
away from that. And I know Chairman DeFazio very much wants to 
have a bipartisan infrastructure package. I know Ranking Member 
Graves does. I think all of us do. And so it is really going to 
have to come from the top down. And I really hope that you can 
make sure, impress upon the President, as I tried to do, and 
others, that--send a message that we really want a bipartisan 
bill.
    We can get something done in a bipartisan manner if the 
direction from the White House and from you indicates that is 
your desire. So I hope you do that.
    And I've got to tell you, I just came back from a 
motorcycle ride, my first one of the season, and I can reaffirm 
to you the obvious--that our roads and bridges in this country 
suck, and they need a lot of work. And you can't do it in a 
partisan manner because it is too big an issue for us to get 
done. And I hope very much that not only is it a bipartisan on 
infrastructure but bipartisan on how they build in particular. 
It is very, very important to my district.
    So, as we discussed, it is a real desire to have this 
bipartisanship. And in central New York, comprehensive 
infrastructure reform would mean dependable Federal support for 
in-demand projects like the Interstate 81 rebuild, which I 
mentioned to you in our previous meeting. It means increased 
investments to modernize our clean water and wastewater systems 
and applying the lessons of the pandemic to expand broadband 
connectivity and to ensure all families have access to 
essential services in the 21st century.
    These are all goals we can accomplish together. And the key 
word there is ``together.'' And there is one principle for this 
discussion that I know many of my colleagues on this panel 
would agree, so how we get there matters. Bipartisan 
involvement in this process is not only essential to enacting 
legislation and receive support from both sides of the aisle 
but to pass an infrastructure bill that reflects the needs of 
every American community.
    With that in mind, I will say that the Infrastructure 
Working Group from the Problem Solvers Caucus, and if you 
recall at our meeting previously, Mr. Secretary, I gave you a 
copy of our Problem Solvers Caucus outline from 2018. And we 
are in the process of updating it now, and we should be able to 
get that to you shortly.
    I commend that to you. And I am proud to work with my 
cochair on that to engage administration on these important 
issues.
    Excuse me, could you hold my time for a minute, please? 
Could someone please mute their microphone? I would appreciate 
it. I would ask for the [inaudible] of my time. Thank you.
    Ms. Norton. You may continue. I am sorry.
    Mr. Katko. Thank you. I appreciate it. I hope we can 
continue working together on a truly bipartisan infrastructure 
package in the coming months, and I look forward to hearing 
from you on some of those today.
    As I mentioned earlier, the I-81 rebuild in my district is 
truly a monumental project, which will impact the city of 
Syracuse and the surrounding areas for generations to come. It 
is literally a multibillion-dollar project.
    And since your confirmation, I know that your office has 
already heard from myself and other local elected officials 
about the importance of I-81, and of ensuring that all voices 
are heard on this project. It is not just a city project; it is 
a regional project.
    And with this amount of time, would you be able to speak to 
your familiarity with the project, Mr. Secretary, and advise on 
the status of its consideration by the Federal Highway 
Administration?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So thank you for raising that, and you 
are right, I have got a stack of letters on this, and I have 
heard from you and others about how important the project is. I 
will have to go back to Federal----
    Mr. Katko. I told you, it's not just Syracuse!
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, it is a community that reminds 
me a lot of home, and I recognize the issues that have led to 
the urgency of having infrastructure improvements there.
    To your earlier remark, there is, you know, mayors are fond 
of pointing out how there is no such thing as a Democrat or 
Republican pothole. And I think when it comes to our roads and 
a lot of other things, it is a shared bipartisan priority. So, 
I would ask you to bear with me while I get with the Federal 
Highway Administration and find out any kind of procedural 
matters that would help to speak to where that is in terms of 
its progress but certainly have heard loud and clear its 
importance to the communities you represent.
    Mr. Katko. Well, I appreciate it. And I will reiterate my 
request to have you come up and see it for yourself. I think 
this would be a good test project for you to see how to be 
innovative and use American ingenuity to fix a longstanding 
problem in central New York. And I will sweeten the pot by 
saying my sister and brother-in-law have the best Irish pub in 
Syracuse, and I will buy you a beer if you come up. How is 
that?
    Secretary Buttigieg. It sounds good.
    Mr. Katko. Also, as you know, Mr. Secretary, the 
infrastructure report card issued by the American Society of 
Civil Engineers earlier this month gave the U.S. a C-minus on 
the clean water infrastructure. The report card projects the 
annual investment gap for drinking water and wastewater systems 
would grow to $434 billion by 2029. Do you expect the need for 
expanded investments to be reflected in the administration's 
budget request this year? And to what extent does the 
administration evaluate the formula of smart water technology 
to modernize these systems?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, no topic could be closer to my 
former mayoral heart than smart water technology. I do want to 
note that, while the committee's mandate is transportation and 
infrastructure, I would be a little outside of my lane if I 
speak to the water and wastewater dimension before the White 
House does, but I know that it is an active topic of 
conversation. And I really want to embrace your raising this 
issue because sometimes what is underground is not considered 
as sexy as the trains, planes, and automobiles that you can 
see, but it is unquestionably an important part of 
infrastructure.
    Mr. Katko. Chairwoman----
    Ms. Norton. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Katko. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Ms. Norton. We go now to Ms. Titus.
    Ms. Titus?
    Ms. Titus. I am coming. Thank you.
    Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure to welcome you to the 
committee, and I hope that soon I will be able to host you 
again here in Las Vegas. We enjoyed having you here.
    Southern Nevada has a lot going on right now. There are 
many exciting and innovative transportation projects already 
underway. We have got the people-mover project that is under 
the new convention center in partnership with the Boring 
Company. We are testing the first autonomous vehicle without a 
safety driver. And we have also got a digital curbside traffic 
management system that is being piloted in downtown Las Vegas. 
But there is still a lot to do, and most of that has to do with 
regional connections.
    We need to be connected to our neighbors in Arizona and in 
California. And a couple of things that are on the horizon are 
addressing the real congestion issues between here and 
California. And we are looking at two ways to do that. One is 
by improving I-15 from here to there, that is just like a 
parking lot on weekends with people traveling back and forth to 
Las Vegas from that area. And the other is supporting the 
buildout of the Brightline West. And this, I am sure, as you 
know, is a privately owned and operated high-speed train that 
is all electric. And we want to see that sort of thing 
developed here in the Southwest, not just in the Northeast or 
in Florida.
    In addition to that, we hope to develop the Interstate 11 
between Las Vegas and Phoenix. We are the only two metropolitan 
areas in the country that aren't connected by interstate. So I 
wonder if you would comment on regional projects. I know you 
received a letter from Arizona Representative Stanton and me 
about getting some funding to complete the EIS for that I-11 
project. But would you talk about the administration's position 
on not just local but projects of regional significance, 
including, specifically, those that I mentioned?
    Ms. Norton. Did the gentleman hear the question?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, and thank you for, first of all, 
elevating the importance of the regional approach. I think it 
is something that really needs to be recognized in terms of, 
you know, framework that has sometimes pitted neighboring 
States against each other or neighboring communities against 
each other. And what I have seen in, you know, certainly in our 
own experience in Indiana but also as we are contemplating the 
future of transportation is you can't do these things one 
community at a time. So it certainly got our attention in a 
favorable way to see how Arizona and Nevada legislators are 
speaking one voice on the importance of many of the projects 
like those that you just mentioned. You know, in visiting Las 
Vegas, I have often been struck by how it is like a glimpse of 
the future. That is true demographically, but it is also 
sometimes true technologically in ways like what you have 
described.
    But as for the need for that interstate extension, again, I 
have heard that loud and clear. And it is the kind of project 
that is a reminder of what might be possible if we were 
investing more as a country in making sure we have had the 
infrastructure [inaudible] as well as taking care of what we 
already got. And I would just urge us to continue to find ways 
to be smart in assigning resources to those needs, recognizing 
when the expansion or introduction of the highway really would 
relieve congestion, and other cases and places where it is 
really about mode shifting and giving people alternatives to 
the highways that will have the biggest effect. And I will 
welcome the chance to continue working with that on what is 
going to be right for Nevada, for the constituents who you 
represent, and the Southwest as a region.
    Ms. Titus. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. I am glad to 
hear that.
    Before I go, I would just like to draw one other thing to 
your attention, and we have heard about safety for all users. 
If you look at the statistics, you see that children in 
underserved communities face a lot of disparity in terms of 
their safety, in terms of the number of children who are killed 
in accidents without seatbelts, killed as pedestrians. I have 
got a bill called Enhancing Child Passenger Safety in 
Underserved Communities.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Can you make sure the mic is back up?
    Ms. Titus. Have I lost you? Well, it's Enhancing Child 
Passenger Safety in Underserved Communities. So I hope that the 
Department will work with me to include that in an 
infrastructure bill because we need to be sure that all users, 
including in those minority communities, especially children, 
are protected. And I will yield back. If you will just put that 
on your calendar, on your agenda. Thank you.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Oh, I am hearing something.
    Ms. Norton. I thank the gentlelady for her questions.
    We move now to Mr. Rouzer. I am sorry, to Mr. Bost.
    Mr. Bost. Madam Chair, I think Mr. Rouzer has already----
    Ms. Norton. I am sorry, to Mr. Bost.
    Mr. Bost. Yes, thank you Madam Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, I hope we have got connectivity so we can 
understand and get some answers. I know there is a little bit 
of a problem going on there. But I want to thank you for being 
here today.
    You know, I have been working across trying to address the 
problem of shortage for truck parking in Congress by leading 
the Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act. This is a bipartisan 
bill that will dedicate existing Federal funding to use 
exclusively for building out truck parking capacities. And what 
I would like to know is how familiar are you with the truck 
parking shortage crisis across the country and, specifically, 
the safety hazards that go along with it, as well as the 
problems that it causes? And how do you plan to work with the 
States and stakeholders to actually solve the problem because 
DOT and the States have studied this problem more than enough? 
They know it is a real problem, but it is past time that the 
DOT prioritizes this issue and addresses it.
    Ms. Norton. Are you there, Mr. Secretary? Have we lost the 
Secretary?
    Voice. I think he is having internet issues.
    Ms. Norton. We are having internet issues. We will pause. 
Mr. Secretary, did you hear the question?
    We will take a 5-minute recess to try to get the Secretary 
back.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Bost. Are we ready to resume?
    Ms. Norton. Yes, you can resume now.
    Mr. Bost. All right. Thank you.
    Mr. Secretary, I don't know if you got the question or not, 
but I just need to know how familiar you are with the truck 
parking shortage crisis across the country and, specifically, 
the safety hazards that the shortage causes, and how you plan 
to work with the States and other stakeholders to solve the 
problem? You know, DOT had studied this a long time. But it's 
time to quit studying it because they came up with the same 
fact we all know, which is we're short on parking spots.
    Secretary Buttigieg. So I certainly recognize the concern. 
And I hope to get more familiar with it in short order. There 
are certainly tools that could be used, whether we are talking 
about the efficiency of how trucks are routed or whether we are 
talking about the uses of right-of-way, and I will do what I 
can to make sure I have a more informed response on that by the 
next time we speak.
    Mr. Bost. I would love to have the time to sit and talk to 
you about it. I actually myself am one of the few Members of 
Congress that grew up in a trucking family. My grandfather 
started a trucking business in 1933. I have been making working 
with the--many of the stakeholders are involved and the dangers 
and the fact of the amount of drivers that we are losing on the 
road and everything because of the safety concerns, not only to 
the drivers of the trucks but also four-wheel vehicles when 
there is not parking spots running underneath trucks, and 
things like that that occur.
    But I want to switch topics just right quick, if I can. 
According to a report in the 2017 [inaudible], the worst 
traffic jam in America that occurred in 2017 wasn't on a 
highway. It was along the inland waterways, not our highway 
system at all. So imagine the 50-mile backup with barges on the 
Ohio River and $22 billion worth of U.S. grain and other 
products each year being held up. In my district, the project I 
hear most about from the ag industry is the Navigation and 
Ecosystem Sustainability Program, or NESP, which would lead to 
seven new 1,200-foot locks and dams on the upper Mississippi 
River and the Illinois waterways. Where does the modernization 
of U.S. locks and dams fit into President Biden's 
infrastructure strategy?
    Ms. Norton. Can you hear him, Mr. Secretary?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, I apologize. It skipped for a 
moment, but I believe I understood the question to be about 
where the modernization of waterway infrastructure fits in the 
President's agenda. And I appreciate you raising this. It 
doesn't get as much attention, but it is incredibly important 
to the economic competitiveness of this country and to the flow 
of goods in so many regions. So there is no question that this 
needs to be part of the overall vision. I am respectful of 
different jurisdictional boundaries that are at play. But in my 
simplistic understanding of surface transportation, water is 
certainly a surface, and we need to be thinking about it.
    Mr. Bost. Many of the things are outdated and the clog and 
bottleneck that occurs just north of my district, I have a 
unique situation. I have three navigable waterways in my 
district: the Mississippi, Ohio, and Kaskaskia River, and the 
concerns that it has for agriculture. If there is a way we can 
work with you on that, we would be glad to do that.
    I had two other questions which have already been asked 
and/or you responded to.
    And, with that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
    Ms. Norton. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Huffman, you are recognized.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And, Secretary Buttigieg, congratulations. Welcome to our 
committee, and thanks for your leadership. I agree with you 
that now is the time; this is the best opportunity we are going 
to see in our lifetimes to do something big and transformative 
and to do double duty by tackling climate crisis as we tackle 
our infrastructure needs.
    So I am coming to you from the north coast of California, 
where again you have a standing invitation to visit. In 
addition to showing you one of the most beautiful places in the 
world, I would love to show you a lot of aging and failing 
infrastructure, including highways, roads, and bridges. We are 
also on the front line of climate change, not just the 
catastrophic wildfires that have swept our State, but a host of 
other climate impacts from severe droughts to flooding, rising 
sea levels, and changing ocean conditions.
    We are acutely aware that just building back infrastructure 
to the standards and expectations we had decades ago is not 
going to cut it. We have got to build back better with an eye 
toward climate impacts.
    And so I would like to ask you about two specific programs 
that can help us do that. First is, in the reauthorization this 
committee passed last year, we created a new Pre-Disaster 
Mitigation Program. This would relocate or replace 
transportation infrastructure projects that are repeatedly 
failing.
    It is common sense, I believe, that if you are endlessly 
fixing a section of highway that keeps failing, you shouldn't 
use expensive Band-Aids forever; you should find a permanent 
fix. And the poster child for this problem is on a rugged 
stretch of coastline in my district, just south of Crescent 
City, where Highway 101 clings sometimes to a very steep, 
crumbling cliff high above the ocean. It is known as Last 
Chance Grade. And because the hillside is constantly sliding, 
the road is often closed for weeks or months at a time while 
Caltrans figures out another way to temporarily keep it from 
falling into the ocean. This is our main north-south 
transportation corridor. So every time it closes, it disrupts 
the entire region. And we know that a massive failure that 
would cost the region $130 million annually in addition to 
whatever lives would be lost is just a matter of time.
    So we are trying to get ahead of this by convening a 
comprehensive stakeholder group and identifying the most viable 
cost-effective ways to reroute this stretch of highway. We are 
going to do that, but this is a remote, rural, economically 
challenged area. We are going to need a significant Federal 
investment to get it done.
    So, Secretary Buttigieg, can you discuss what the 
administration wants to do for projects like Last Chance Grade, 
where critical infrastructure keeps failing and really needs to 
be rerouted and replaced? Do you agree we need a dedicated 
program like what we passed out of the House last year?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks for raising this. I agree that 
it is very important for us to make sure however we do it, 
structurally or programmatically, and you have laid out a great 
template for a way to do it. But we recognize that the 
conditions are shifting. Sometimes literally the ground is 
shifting beneath the infrastructure that we are contemplating. 
And sometimes the right answer will change, if not within the 
lifetime of the authorization, certainly, within the lifetime 
of the project. Shame on us if we are building roads or bridges 
or anything else that is expected to last into the 2070s 
without thinking about how that is going to look different than 
the 1970s. And I think that forward-looking approach to 
resiliency needs to be woven into every part of the way we 
approach our infrastructure spending.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    So we have talked a lot about resiliency. I have described 
the climate impacts we are feeling in California. There is 
another Federal program that really helps disaster-impacted 
communities repair roads and get back on their feet. It is the 
Emergency Relief, or ER, program. And disasters often devastate 
entire regions, which can cause material and workforce 
shortages. That makes it hard to meet the program's 2-year 
timeline for beginning construction.
    The last administration was completely unsympathetic to 
this problem. They rejected a number of extension requests in 
my district and elsewhere. This jeopardizes tens of millions of 
dollars in construction projects that we need to repair roads 
and get back on our feet. And this committee took action to fix 
it last year. We favorably reported changes to the ER program. 
Every single Democrat in California supports it. We are going 
to keep tackling this. But as we try to pass this legislation, 
you are in a position to assure disaster-impacted communities, 
that reasonable requests for extension will be considered, 
unlike what we got from the last administration. Will you 
provide us that assurance?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I will make sure that there is every 
reasonable consideration of those conditions. I understand the 
impatience, of course, that is encoded into our programs to 
make sure that they get done, but it can't be one size fits 
all, especially for disaster-impacted communities like those 
you are describing.
    Mr. Huffman. I really appreciate that, Mr. Secretary.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Norton. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Weber of Texas.
    Mr. Weber. Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate that.
    Welcome, Mr. Secretary, it is nice to see you here in the 
first hearing and welcome to your new position. Can you hear 
me?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. Thanks very much. I can. I 
appreciate the kind words.
    Mr. Weber. No, you betcha. I saw the notice of funding 
availability for the recent INFRA grant round that one of the 
considerations your Department will use in evaluating 
applications is whether a project creates or will lead to union 
jobs. Now, we have got our great Chairwoman Eddie Bernice 
Johnson listening in. So I am grateful she is here. I hope 
Brian Babin is here, as well as perhaps Sheriff Nehls.
    An interesting factoid the Texas Department of 
Transportation told me when I was in the Texas House before I 
got demoted to Congress was that Texas has so many roads and so 
many rights-of-way; when they mow all of those rights-of-way, 
they have actually just got through mowing the entire State of 
Rhode Island. So, needless to say, we have a lot of roads and 
rights-of-way in Texas that are important to us.
    But irrespective of leading to union jobs and whatever 
political considerations might be involved in that kind of a 
decisionmaking process, doesn't it strike you that that 
actually creates an immediate disadvantage for applicants like 
Texas in a right-to-work State? And before you answer, I want 
to add that Congress created and funds these grants, and yet if 
this administrative decision is made, I don't think it is going 
to be in line with the stated purpose of those programs. So I 
guess, (A), are you aware of what I am talking about? And (B), 
and are you willing to reconsider your decisions to include 
this disqualifying factor in awarding other grants because it 
is going to have negative consequences on a lot of other 
States, probably notably the biggest one, of course, being our 
beloved Texas?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Sure. So I want to make sure I 
understand exactly what conditions this would be regarded as 
disqualifying under. I will say, of course, the administration 
has a commitment to making sure we create as many good-paying 
jobs as possible. And there is an expectation for us to promote 
union jobs and jobs that pay prevailing wages. I don't believe 
that that is a cutoff type of requirement. As you know, there 
are a lot of overlapping goals that are reflected in INFRA, as 
we have in all of our discretionary grants. And I believe the 
cutoff date for those grants was the 19th of March. So we are 
looking forward to seeing what different communities have come 
up, and I imagine some from around your neighborhood will be 
among them.
    Mr. Weber. Well, we certainly hope so. Thank you for that.
    And, then secondly, I am on, of course, the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee. There is a lot of pipelines in 
our area. Texas, as you might guess, we would surmise, we would 
make the claim that Texas is the energy-leading State in the 
country. And so it is very, very important to us. In 2020, this 
committee worked in a bipartisan manner with the Senate to pass 
reauthorization of the PIPES Act for the Pipeline and Hazardous 
Materials Safety Administration, which we call PHMSA. Can you 
please provide an update to our committee here today on the 
Department's plan to implement that legislation? Are you 
familiar with it? Have you all discussed that?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, I appreciate the question. So we 
know that, since the PIPES Act has passed, it contains, of 
course, a lot of expectations directing us and PHMSA to prepare 
to respond in terms of the rulemaking. So there is right now 
focus on making sure we have the capacity. There is staffing up 
going on, including the first agencywide NEPA expert and new 
regulatory attorneys to make sure that we can support that.
    And we know that there are a lot of rules that have been 
pending for some time that need to be finalized, and so we need 
to make sure that those are getting over the finish line too. 
So I am aware of the legislative expectations, and we will be 
doing everything we can with PHMSA leadership to make sure we 
are meeting congressional intent.
    Mr. Weber. Well, thank you.
    And, finally, the U.S. has emerged as key player in the LNG 
marketplace. Texas, of course, is a big one. Louisiana right 
next door to us is a big one. A lot of it goes down the Sabine-
Neches Waterway, which is managed by the Sabine-Neches 
Navigation District. The bipartisan pipeline safety legislation 
passed last year required PHMSA to update regulations to 
enhance LNG safety and establish an LNG center of excellence. 
What more do you know about that, and can you commit to us 
today that PHMSA will meaningfully engage in those mandates and 
complete them in a timely fashion?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, we will certainly seek to 
complete every mandate in a timely fashion. With regard to the 
center of excellence, I would ask you to allow me to consult 
with PHMSA leadership to get a progress report on that, and we 
will try to get you an update.
    Mr. Weber. Fair enough, Mr. Secretary, and welcome.
    I yield back.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
    Ms. Norton. Ms. Brownley. I recognize Ms. Brownley.
    Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And welcome, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for being here. And 
we are very, very excited about your leadership in the 
transportation sector. And also thank you for your commitment 
to addressing the climate impacts of our transportation system.
    To help achieve our carbon reduction goals, I introduced 
the Green Bus Act, which would set a national goal for the 
zero-emission bus transition, similar to California's goal, 
which requires that, beginning in 2029, all new buses that are 
purchased using Federal funds be zero-emission buses. So I want 
to ask do you believe the next surface transportation bill 
should set a national zero-emission bus transition goal?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you for that. You know, 
the more we give people alternatives for getting around, the 
more we've got to consider how all of them can be zero 
emission. Obviously, for privately owned vehicles, there is a 
lot going on electrifying those. But as we create more transit 
opportunities, as you are saying, it is real important to make 
sure that those buses and other transit assets are low or no 
emissions as well. And I would want to look a little more at 
the consequences and implications of the timeline you are 
describing, but I certainly believe that this is the time for 
us to have ambitious goals in how every mode gets to zero 
carbon, and transit has got to be a big part of that story.
    Ms. Brownley. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. And also 
thank you for mentioning sustainable aviation in your opening 
remarks. I just, I want to make you aware that I introduced the 
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act legislation to help spur large-
scale production of sustainable aviation fuel, which I believe 
is crucial to the aviation industry's efforts to decarbonize.
    DOT has led sustainable aviation fuel, R&D efforts through 
the ASCENT Center of Excellence, the CLEEN Program, the Volpe 
Center, and sponsorship of the Commercial Aviation Alternative 
Fuels Initiative resulting in seven approved pathways for SAF 
production and more in the pipeline.
    Now that SAF is ready for widespread commercialization 
because of DOT's efforts, what policies can DOT put in place to 
assist with deployment, help scale the SAF industry, and ensure 
that we can decarbonize the aviation sector given that SAF is 
widely considered the most significant near-term means of 
reducing emissions in the aviation sector?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I agree with you that SAF is the 
most significant near-term means available to us. It is not 
like surface transportation where electrification is already in 
line for widespread adoption. And I think the key word is the 
word that you used, which is ``scale.'' We know that in order 
for this to truly be economical for carriers and ultimately for 
passengers, we would have to be at a more advanced scale than 
we are right now.
    I am trying to assess how much of that can be achieved 
through further developments in the research space versus what 
we can do in terms of market-making investments that might be 
supportive of getting closer to that critical mass that would 
allow SAF to really mature as a market, and then, eventually, 
we would hope to be in a position where they can be adopted 
without any policy thumb on the scale. But we know that is a 
long way off.
    So we are open about different approaches to get it done 
and agree with you that there is no time like the present for 
America to be leading in that regard.
    Ms. Brownley. Well, I hope you will take a look at my bill. 
The bill certainly addresses research and development but also 
ways in which we can begin to scale now versus 10 years from 
now. So I hope you take a look at it, and I would love to work 
with you on it, on this specific area.
    So, last, in my few minutes that I have left, I am sure you 
are aware of the Department of Energy's program to promote 
American manufacturing of zero-emission vehicles. It is the 
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Program. It is 
designed for light-duty vehicles. Congressman Debbie Dingell 
and I have a bill to include medium- and heavy-duty trucks to 
this. And so I am curious to know if you engaged with Secretary 
Granholm to discuss how DOT and DoD can collaborate on 
transportation and energy issues like ATVM.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I have had some great conversations 
with Secretary Granholm because we, I think, mutually recognize 
that our goals rely on what the other is doing. Certainly, from 
a grid perspective, we are going to need enhancements to the 
grid for any kind of easy adoption to be as widespread as we 
had hoped, whether it is on the medium- or heavy-duty side or 
on the light-duty side. We also know that an electric vehicle 
is only as clean as the power that goes into it, and that is 
another reason why we need to be collaborating. So we will 
welcome further opportunities to think about that and work on 
it in an integrative way and are very responsive to your push 
to make sure we are contemplating not just privately owned 
vehicles but the future of those heavy-duty vehicles as well.
    Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    And I yield back.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. LaMalfa, you are recognized.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And congratulations, Mr. Secretary, on your new role here. 
A lot of excitement I am sure for that. And so I just have a 
couple of thoughts I want to get with you here on. Some of my 
colleagues touched earlier on the export containers and the 
crisis we have right now in this country with [inaudible] fix 
that situation, you know, because we have a lot of products--we 
want to be an exporter as well in this country. Here in 
California where we have a really strong agricultural industry, 
it is important we have the opportunity to export these crops. 
And it has to be very timely as well. We have a lot of 
electronics and other hard goods that we need to export, but 
they don't quite maybe have the time urgency as a crop. You 
pick a blueberry, you have got a window of time to get it to 
market. So what kind of urgency can you place on resolving this 
issue of not just having--they seem to be able to make more 
money by a container coming from China, offloading, and 
immediately going back than the amount of time it takes to fill 
with American-made and American-grown products.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, this is a concern and one that I 
think has reached a new level of urgency given some of the 
backups that we have seen, especially in the Northwest, but 
really impacting the whole U.S. economy. I know that there 
aren't easy fixes, but we need to be sure that we are doing 
everything we can on our side to be supportive.
    So I will be consulting with the Maritime Administration to 
look at ways we can address, certainly, the backups we are 
seeing at the ports, as well as I think looking at the broader 
supply chain concern. I know this is a priority for the 
President. And, you know, the more we can have a supply chain 
that is resilient to these kinds of things that are happening, 
supply shock shortages and so forth, the stronger I think we 
will be overall in weathering any of those kinds of temporary 
economic conditions that seem to be getting in the way.
    Mr. LaMalfa. [Inaudible.] So, in order for--if this comes 
about, to have this somehow be equitable, do you anticipate 
that the reasons for this are to ensnare the electric vehicles 
that currently aren't paying, or is this a net revenue increase 
for governments by adding this to the other taxes that already 
exist? Do we see that [inaudible].
    Secretary Buttigieg. I am sorry. I am afraid there is an 
audio issue on my side, and your question got chopped up. Do I 
understand correctly you are asking about the revenue effects 
of a vehicle-miles traveled fee?
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yeah. We have a very rural district. It is a 
lot of miles traveled in order to get to our resource-based 
jobs.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I see.
    Mr. LaMalfa. And so the bottom line is this is going to hit 
our rural, depressed economy areas pretty hard for just regular 
people. So will the vehicle mileage tax in your view replace 
gas tax and other things, or will it be an additional tax that 
is going to increase the burden on, whether it's truckers, or 
small businesses or families, how do we envision that? I know 
that part of the idea is to [inaudible].
    Secretary Buttigieg. I understand. Yes. The intention is 
not to pile one fee on top of another. Rather, I think what is 
really driving this is just the awareness that as vehicles 
become more fuel efficient or move off gasoline entirely, we 
need to make sure that if we're on a user-fee system, that they 
are somehow paying in. The gas tax was the simplest way to have 
a user fee because we used to know for a fact that the more you 
drove, the more gas you used. Now, obviously, it's not that 
simple.
    But I'm very attuned to the concerns you're raising about 
equity and about the burden that could be placed on rural 
communities. I think that's really a question of policy design. 
There are a lot of ways we could structure it or think about 
setting it up, whether it's a rebate mechanism or some kind of 
phase-in or something else to make sure that it's not 
disproportionately hurting those who are already hard hit.
    Mr. LaMalfa. [Inaudible] track how many miles are going 
into a database, or do people have the option to just, do you 
anticipate, to just write it down and send it in, or something 
that you punch in at the gas pump? Even that, you know, I think 
a lot of people really are concerned about their privacy of 
where they go and what they do and not have to be tracked for 
all that. What do you think about that aspect?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I recognize that concern, and I think 
that is one of the things that we have got to work through. It 
is one thing to have an electronic logging device for a 
commercial trucking company. It is another for a private 
citizen to be assessed based on how much they drive. So some 
concepts are more odometer-based. Some are more GPS-based. But 
whatever we come up with, if we are going to move in this 
direction, has to be sensitive to those privacy concerns.
    Ms. Norton. I recognize now Ms. Wilson of Florida. Is Ms. 
Wilson available?
    Then I will move on to Mr. Payne. Mr. Payne.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Secretary, it is good to see you again. And I appreciated 
the call we had earlier this week. And as chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, 
I have vested interest in resolving the tremendous backlog of 
rail infrastructure projects. Chief among them is the Gateway 
Program, and I know you are going to hear this several times 
from members on this committee. It is becoming a matter of 
redundancy. And so, hopefully, we can get your support on this. 
And I look forward to touring the current tunnel with you soon 
to show you the needs to critically be replaced.
    Can I get an assurance that you will move expeditiously to 
resolve all outstanding delays in getting the tunnel built?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Certainly. We know that it is of such 
importance to the region and really to the whole country 
because of how much economic activity passes through those 
tunnels. So I can update you a little bit more than I was able 
to say before by adding that FRA is working with all of the 
Federal and State agencies who are involved in those regulatory 
pieces that are at stake and had been meeting over the last few 
weeks with the principals from all the relevant project partner 
agencies so that we can make sure those environmental processes 
are being met promptly. And also on the other side, the funding 
side, making sure that everything that is needed by way of the 
CIG program is also being met.
    Mr. Payne. Great. And that segues me into my next question, 
you know, unlike--we discussed this earlier this week too. 
Unlike other transportation sectors, rail does not have a 
dedicated and reliable stream of funding. That has left major 
critically necessary infrastructure projects reliant on the 
annual appropriations process to find out if they will get any 
funding. What would be the benefits of a dedicated funding 
source for major rail projects?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, as you point out, we have a 
dedicated Highway Trust Fund. We have a trust fund for 
supporting our airports, but we don't have that on the rail 
side. And if we had the kind of dedicated and predictable 
funding source that you are describing, I believe we would make 
a big difference to the ability to plan and make responsible 
and strategic infrastructure decisions when it comes to the 
future of rail.
    Going to that kind of year-by-year process really subjects 
rail to the varying winds of what is going on in Washington 
when, by its very nature, we are talking about very long-term 
planning, and a dedicated and sustainable and predictable 
funding source could make a very big difference in that regard.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you. [Inaudible.] One of my priorities is 
ensuring that everyone has a fair shot at contracting work on 
these projects and a level playing field. This includes DBEs 
who have suffered historic systematic discrimination. I was 
shocked to hear that the Federal Railroad Administration does 
not have a DBE program. Yet the other modal administrations do. 
I understand that equity is a top priority of yours. Why is it 
important to you and the President to have these DBEs involved 
in these projects?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, it is important as a matter of 
fairness, and it is important as a matter of economic strength, 
and it is important when we consider that sometimes U.S. 
transportation policy in the past has, frankly, actively harmed 
racial and economic justice in this country.
    When we are spending taxpayer dollars, we've got to make 
sure those dollars go to workers and companies that reflect the 
American people, all of the American people. And that is why 
supporting DBEs is so important.
    So we are going to be working, as you said, with this as a 
major priority during my time here. And structurally that will 
certainly include reinforcing the DBE program as a Department 
as a whole and may also mean doing more specifically within the 
modes to make sure that they are able to meet that priority.
    Mr. Payne. Well, hopefully, we can get a commitment that 
DBE programs at the FRA will uphold the principles when one is 
created. And I will yield back. Thank you.
    Ms. Norton. [Inaudible] I didn't know if the Secretary had 
an answer to that question about the Federal Railroad 
Administration.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Let me just reiterate my commitment. 
We will absolutely make sure that FRA investments, as with 
investments across DOT, are robust in being directed as much as 
we can beef up in a way that is equitable. And, by the way, let 
me just make one other brief point on this. I also think we 
have a responsibility as a Department and as a Government to 
build up the capacity of DBEs to begin with. We know there are 
DBEs who are there but aren't certified. We know there are some 
that are in formation but have been disadvantaged from even 
being able to get there in the first place. And I do not regard 
it as an acceptable excuse for underutilization to be able to 
say the businesses weren't there in the first place because 
that simply begs the question of why. And we ought to make sure 
there are more businesses up and running to begin with.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    I asked a question about DBEs as well. So I can't 
understand why any Department would be left out of the DBE 
requirement.
    Mr. Westerman, you are recognized.
    Mr. Mast, you are recognized.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate it.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us. I am wondering 
if infrastructure gets broadband [inaudible].
    Secretary Buttigieg. As if to prove the point, I am having 
a little trouble hearing you, yeah, but it is a reminder of how 
far we have got to go.
    Mr. Mast. We will try to work our way through it. Listen, I 
have enjoyed hearing the testimony. You have made it very clear 
that environmental justice, it is a top priority for the 
infrastructure package. You have spoken about it in terms of 
climate change and rising oceans.
    You just testified to Mr. Bost just a few minutes ago that 
waterway infrastructure does fit into the President's agenda. 
And I was glad to hear you speak about that as well. I wanted 
to ask a little bit more specifically on that. Would you say 
that improving water quality is a component of achieving the 
administration's environmental justice goals?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Certainly. If you can't take for 
granted that you can get a glass of clean, safe drinking water 
out of the tap when you are starting your day, that your family 
is going to be safe, then that wrecks so many other things in 
your life. And so we have got to make sure everyone can count 
on superior water quality.
    Mr. Mast. Absolutely. And, you know, we have seen issues in 
Flint and other places, not just in terms of the drinking 
water, but also water that goes into the communities and homes, 
the backyards, the canals, the estuaries, and other places. 
Would you say that that would be a critical component to 
achieving the administration's environmental justice goals?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Certainly.
    Mr. Mast. Very good. Just glad to hear you say it. You said 
it as simply as it could be said.
    Do you also agree that water quality infrastructure, maybe 
as it relates to, say, Everglades infrastructure, that could be 
an example, should be a feature in the administration's 
infrastructure package?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Certainly, all areas of the country 
need to be served well. I want to take care that I might be 
wandering out of my lane a little bit knowing that a lot of the 
waterways are a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers matter, but 
certainly the administration as a whole cares a lot about this. 
And to the extent this does touch on Department of 
Transportation equities, we are eager to support that.
    Mr. Mast. I don't appreciate that at all, because I am 
trying my best to help you veer out of your lane. So, you know, 
you are--so in that, no, I do appreciate your candidness with 
my questions.
    Just one other question, and this is opinion, and I 
understand that it is not exactly your lane, but it is 
important for somebody at your level in the administration and 
to just ask this [inaudible] the Federal Government has a right 
to poison its citizens?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Could I ask you to say that one more 
time? I'm sorry, it broke up again.
    Mr. Mast. Absolutely. It was to follow on with this, in the 
same line of questioning. Do you believe that the Federal 
Government has any right whatsoever to poison its citizens?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Of course not.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you for your testimony.
    And, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
    Ms. Norton. The gentleman yields.
    I next call on Mr. Lowenthal.
    Mr. Lowenthal, you are recognized.
    Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Chairwoman.
    And thank you, Secretary Buttigieg, for joining us. You 
have been wonderful and honest and open about your answers. And 
I thank you for laying out an ambitious agenda that supports 
critical and national priorities, such as an integrated 
multimodal freight network to support our economy, the bold 
action that you have laid out on climate change, and critical 
investments in transit.
    For me, what I would like to emphasize more is the critical 
importance of heavy-duty vehicle electrification.You know, 
medium- and heavy-duty trucks are responsible for one-quarter 
of the U.S. transportation emissions. Globally, heavy-vehicle 
emissions, unfortunately, throughout are rising. And 
eliminating these emissions is possible, which will be 
transformative for communities like mine.
    I represent the Port of Long Beach, a wonderful port 
complex, part of the L.A.-Long Beach complex. But all around 
the ports in my district, they are frontline communities where 
diesel pollution is still, even though the ports have done an 
amazing job of try and reducing it, is still an enduring 
challenge, and where the costs of climate change are extremely 
high. But what I have heard in talking to the people and in the 
ports and others in the transportation industry, transforming 
these vehicle fleets and building out the necessary 
infrastructure is going to take time, it is going to take 
effort, and it is going to take Federal support.
    Although, as we all know, efficient freight movement is 
absolutely critical, but it does present unique technical 
problems. So, for example, the Ports of Long Beach and Los 
Angeles have estimated that it will cost $14 billion to 
accomplish their clean air action plan goals, which they are 
very proud of, to move to zero-emission cargo handling 
equipment by 2030 and zero-emission harbor trucks.
    Mr. Secretary, I know you have answered this in part, but I 
would like to hear again what you see as the administration's 
priorities in deploying zero-emission freight and how we move 
to zero-emission freight.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you for raising this. The 
decarbonization of freight is no less important than the 
decarbonization of passenger travel. And as you point out, it 
is especially relevant in a port perspective. So when we are 
talking about maritime emissions, a lot of times we are 
thinking about the ships, and of course we want to see 
improvements in the emissions of ships, but so much of it is in 
trucks and the other vehicles and infrastructure that are 
around those ships as they come into port. And that can have 
tremendous implications for environmental justice and for the 
well-being of communities.
    So from a particulate matter pollution perspective, as 
well, of course, as a carbon and climate perspective, we have 
got to make sure that we are pursuing all of the above. That 
includes mode shifting, so when possible, to make sure that 
each piece of cargo is on the most emissions-responsible mode 
that it can be that is appropriate to that particular piece of 
cargo and where it is headed across water, rail, roadway, et 
cetera. And it is also about making sure that each of those has 
the right kind of technology.
    Certainly, take the point again that no matter how good we 
get at making sure that the cars that you or I might drive in 
are electrified, we have got to be pursuing similar goals when 
it comes to those heavy-duty vehicles in order to truly be 
responsible and in order to meet the goal of a net-zero economy 
by 2050.
    Mr. Lowenthal. I would like to ask another question. Do you 
see hydrogen fuel cell technology as promising here with heavy-
duty trucks?
    It seems that these technologies are important if we want 
to resolve concerns about range, charging time. But there are 
technical hurdles, such as the kind that we have not talked 
about in terms of infrastructure, you know. Charging stations, 
we have. But we don't spend a lot of time dealing with 
hydrogen, so it is complicated. And so I am just wondering what 
role you see for hydrogen in terms of heavy-duty trucks.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I view it as promising. And as 
you know, the small amount of hydrogen fueling capability we 
have in the U.S., much of it is in California. And I think----
    Mr. Lowenthal. Right.
    Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. We need to follow those 
developments. And we should encourage an all-of-the-above 
strategy in terms of moving towards zero-emission technology, 
because we never know where the breakthroughs might lie. But we 
are driven most of all by the outcome more than the inputs. But 
we recognize that there is a Federal role in terms of research 
and in terms of policy support for these promising technologies 
to develop in the first place.
    Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you. And I yield back.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Balderson is recognized.
    Mr. Balderson.
    Mr. Balderson. Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you.
    Ms. Norton. You are recognized, sir.
    Mr. Balderson. Yes, Madam Chairman. Thank you. I am just 
pulling up my questions here.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for joining us, and 
congratulations on your appointment, and look forward to 
working with you as a fellow Midwesterner moving forward.
    So my first question is--Mr. Secretary, first, I would like 
to congratulate you. And my----
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks.
    Mr. Balderson [continuing]. District includes portions of 
Columbus, Ohio, which is by far the fastest growing city in the 
Midwest over the past decade, as well as suburban neighborhoods 
and farming and rural communities. Each of these communities in 
my district have their own distinct transportation challenges. 
In my district, private partnerships have played a crucial role 
in improving the region's infrastructure and preparing central 
Ohio for the future.
    In 2016, Columbus was awarded funding as the winner of the 
U.S. Department of Transportation's Smart City Challenge. 
Through partnerships with the business community and 
stakeholders such as the Ohio Department of Transportation, the 
Transportation Research Center, Ohio State University, the Mid-
Ohio Regional Planning Commission, and the Central Ohio Transit 
Authority and more, that initial funding from the Department 
has grown into a $500 million effort to improve the region's 
transportation services. We call this partnership between 
private industries and the business community ``The Columbus 
Way,'' and I believe it can serve as a model for the rest of 
the Nation.
    Mr. Secretary, what role do you see the public-private 
partnerships play in rebuilding America's infrastructure? And 
what will the Department of Transportation do to ensure rural 
America, who might not have these same opportunities to bring 
in private capital, aren't left behind?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thanks for that question. And 
having been a mayor at the time, I will tell you that many 
cities across America looked with admiration, as well as maybe 
a little envy, at Columbus' success in that Smart City 
Challenge. And really part of what led to that success was, of 
course, those partnerships--public, private, regional--
recognizing that there were so many stakeholders who needed to 
be on the same page.
    I think the best Federal policies are those that recognize 
that, that incentivize and encourage that kind of cooperation. 
And that is something we will certainly be taking a view toward 
as more opportunities emerge.
    There are some areas where there is no substitute for 
federally led and federally funded investment. But anytime that 
we can be leveraging private dollars or just making the right 
kind of public investments that then have a multiplier where 
the private sector will respond, in my experience, that is 
where we get the most bang for our buck. And I am certainly 
eager to see more opportunities like that develop.
    Quickly with regard to your point about rural areas. Often 
smaller communities and rural communities don't have access to 
the same kinds of resources in pursuing Federal support, can't 
afford to have a full-time Federal relations expert on staff 
and so on. That is why we need to make our processes as user 
friendly as possible, and also reward regional cooperation in 
rural areas so that smaller communities can band together to 
get the resources they need.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    My next question is, I was concerned about that under the 
transportation title of the American Rescue Plan, we spent over 
$30 billion for transit agencies, but didn't provide any 
funding for traditional highway infrastructure programs. The 
pandemic's economic impact on State departments of 
transportation have been significant with one estimate saying 
that State DOTs will need an additional $18 billion through 
fiscal year 2024 to fill the budget gaps left by COVID-19.
    How will the administration and the Department of 
Transportation work with State DOTs to address this backlog of 
important projects?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, State DOTs often are among our 
most important partners when it comes to where the actual work 
gets done, you know. Of course, we guide dollars out and then 
somebody has to actually make sure that they are used 
responsibly. Often that falls to a State DOT. Of course, the 
Rescue Plan and the COVID relief packages were mainly focused 
on directly addressing those kinds of revenue shortfalls that 
we saw, some of which was targeted directly at those transit 
agencies. But I do want to note that that category of State and 
local funding has some flexibility in it that I do think can be 
used to support, to a significant degree, those road budgets 
that have been impacted.
    Of course, there is no substitute for addressing our 
backlog, which becomes, by its nature, more expensive each 
passing year. And that is part of what I hope that we have an 
opportunity to address now with that once-in-a-generation 
infrastructure action that could be happening on our watch.
    Mr. Balderson. All right. Mr. Secretary, thank you very 
much. Look forward to working with you.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Norton. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. DeSaulnier.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you so much. I will tell you, this is 
the most coherent testimony I have ever heard from a graduate 
of Harvard or at least that I could comprehend. And I do want 
to join with my neighbor here in the bay area, Mr. Huffman, in 
shamelessly inviting you to the area.
    Sorry, I got a little bit of background [inaudible]. Sorry, 
Madam Chair. There was a little background there.
    So I wanted to talk to you about three subject areas. And 
first is, we have--well, first, I wanted to say in response to 
some of the comments by some of my colleagues about 
California's ZEV mandate, I served on the California Air 
Resources Board for a decade. I was appointed by two Republican 
Governors and a Democratic Governor. The ZEV mandate, we are 
very proud of, I would argue that over the course of 40 years--
and it was originally implemented by a conservative Republican 
Governor, Governor Deukmejian. And, of course, the California 
waiver is important to us in the transportation and energy 
field and the climate field. And, of course, the authorship 
there were by Republican Presidents Nixon and Reagan, and the 
California waiver is so important to the transportation sector 
if we are going to transition.
    So I want to talk to you about transition. The county I 
represent has four refineries in it. It has good paying, union 
mostly, but nonunion can compete if they can pass the 
California apprenticeship standards, which are very high, best 
in the world, I would opine, perhaps behind the Germans, and it 
has resulted in the fuel industry for transportation being the 
cleanest in the world, with our low-carbon standard, fuel 
standard, and also the safest, and also economically one of the 
best and most reliable for the west coast.
    So that mandate is important, vis-a-vis the Chinese, 
because in the next decade, I firmly believe from my background 
that we will have an alternative fuel car, either fuel cells by 
the Japanese probably or battery electric, hopefully by 
Americans, but it could be by the Chinese. As you know, Mr. 
Secretary, when there is a $25,000, $30,000 mass-produced 
alternative fuel car, the world will change. And to borrow 
Daniel Yergin's experience, maybe not appropriate, whoever gets 
there first has got the commanding heights of energy for the 
next century, I would argue.
    So getting those good jobs to follow this energy source and 
infrastructure is important. Now, I have three bills I have 
shared with the chair and the chairs of the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce and the Committee on Education and Labor that we 
are working on that would help facilitate that. On the 
renewable portfolio standard in California that has been wildly 
successful, including financially, the VC money that has come 
to California has been very strong in this regard, but we 
brought the labor force with it. It is much more difficult on 
the fuel side.
    So I would love to be able to have a conversation with you 
about, not just our legislation, but coordinating between DOE--
we have got two national labs here in the East Bay that are 
doing great work with DOE funds now and we are trying to get 
more on carbon capture, but also this transition, the labor 
institutes, and the transportation schools. But to get EPA and 
the Energy, Transportation, and the Labor Departments to all 
work together so we don't leave people behind. These are good-
paying jobs that have, for every 1 of them in these refineries, 
they have multipliers of 14. So we would like to talk to you 
about that. And I would be interested in your opinion, and you 
alluded to it in your testimony.
    And then just briefly the importance of commuter rail and 
high-speed rail in California. We need a world-class passenger 
rail system that is fueled from well to wheel by alternative 
and renewable fuels through the whole connection. So mega 
commutes are a big issue in exurban and suburban areas. We 
would like to work with you in geographically constrained 
quarters, like here in the bay area, certainly DC, Boston, 
other metropolitan areas, New York, because we have to build 
that out.
    And then lastly, on high-speed rail. Although I have been a 
supporter, I have been critical of project management. I think 
it is really important that we work with you to get this right. 
California needs high-speed rail, but it has got to be done in 
a way that it invests in the corridors where we need it most, 
in Los Angeles and San Diego, in the bay area and the valley. 
And brings in the private sector because of the model. So I 
will stop there. Any response to those areas I would 
appreciate.
    [Audio malfunction.]
    Mr. DeSaulnier. I am lost in space like Mr. Cohen.
    Ms. Norton. He can respond to the record. The time has 
expired in any case.
    And I go now to Mr. Fitzpatrick.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you.
    And good afternoon, Secretary Buttigieg. It is good to see 
you again, sir.
    A safety concern of mine is foreign aviation repair 
stations and the fact that the FAA-certified stations in the 
U.S. must meet a different set of standards compared to those 
stations abroad.
    Sir, Congress has twice directed the FAA to address the 
current gaps in regulation that would have allowed for this 
two-tiered system to develop. I was curious, sir, how quickly 
can we expect the Department to close these gaps and establish 
one level of safety for aircraft maintenance?
    [Audio malfunction.]
    Ms. Norton. We have a little difficulty. We are waiting for 
the Secretary's response.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. Madam Chair, could I ask for my time be 
reclaimed so I could repose the question?
    Ms. Norton. Go ahead, Mr. Fitzpatrick.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. Madam Chair, is the Secretary back?
    Staff. Not yet. We can give him the full 5 minutes so it 
is----
    Ms. Norton. Not yet. You will get your full 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Secretary, are you there? Did you hear the 
question?
    Due to technology difficulty, we will try to get the 
Secretary back. And we will give Mr. Fitzpatrick his full time 
back.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Secretary, are you there yet?
    Secretary Buttigieg. [No response.]
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Secretary, we may be able to hear you if 
you turn off your video. Try that, Mr. Secretary.
    We are reconnecting the Secretary, so we are pausing for 
another minute. We will be back. We shall return.
    Mr. Carbajal. We need to provide better broadband to the 
Federal Government.
    Ms. Norton. Is the Secretary back yet, and did he hear the 
question?
    Mr. Lowenthal. Well, Salud can answer for the Secretary. We 
don't need the Secretary.
    Mr. Carbajal. We are still live, Mr. Lowenthal. We are 
still live. But what a boost of confidence. I am impressed.
    Ms. Norton. We don't even know if the Secretary heard the 
question.
    We will start over as soon as he returns. We will pause for 
a moment. We shall return.
    Are we able to get the Secretary back yet? We will be back 
shortly. Technological difficulties.
    We could take the Secretary on audio, even though we don't 
see the picture.
    Can you hear us, Mr. Secretary?
    We will continue to pause.
    It is Mr. Fitzpatrick's time while we are pausing.
    We see the Secretary's seal, but we can't see him yet. We 
apologize for the difficulties.
    Can you hear us at least, Mr. Secretary?
    Secretary Buttigieg. The Chair is asking if I can hear her.
    I am here. Are you able to hear me?
    Ms. Norton. All right. We will proceed. Did you hear Mr. 
Fitzpatrick's question?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Unfortunately, no. I got as far as the 
previous question, but not to Mr. Fitzpatrick.
    Ms. Norton. So we will call--Mr. Fitzpatrick, we will start 
your time over. You are recognized, Mr. Fitzpatrick.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you.
    And good afternoon, Secretary Buttigieg. It is good to see 
you again.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Good afternoon.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. First, a safety concern of mine is foreign 
aviation repair stations and the fact that FAA-certified 
stations in the U.S. must meet a different set of standards 
compared to those stations abroad. Sir, as you are aware, 
Congress has twice directed the FAA to address the current gaps 
in regulation that have allowed for this two-tiered system to 
develop. So my question would be, how quickly can we expect the 
Department of Transportation to close these gaps and establish 
one level of safety for aircraft maintenance?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So I recognize the importance of this 
and understand that there is impatience and frustration on this 
topic. We have heard a lot about this from aviation 
stakeholders. As you know, the FAA has very rigorous processes 
here and then has agreements with other aviation authorities 
globally to ensure safety, and that is supposed to ensure the 
oversight of repair facilities within those countries. But when 
those other countries have different rules or regulations, that 
can be out of synchrony with our own. And one of the challenges 
that we are working through is how to apply the U.S. standards 
throughout the global community in a way that is consistent 
with any of the sovereignty issues or law issues that come up.
    I am certainly following this closely. I know, again, there 
is a sense of urgency to do something here. And we will make 
sure to provide the committee with updates as we have more 
information.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, sir. With rapid new 
technologies in our transportation systems, I know that is 
something that has been raised by you and the administration. 
And I also know you share our belief that our frontline workers 
must benefit from the new technologies. What steps is the 
Department planning on taking to make sure that this new 
technology will be deployed in a way that advances our current 
workforce?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I think it starts with having 
those workers represented at the table as these decisions are 
taking place. So we have tried to have a robust conversation 
from the very beginning with those who really are going to feel 
a lot of the impact, opportunities, but also threats and 
challenges because of these technologies emerging.
    What success looks like is for there to be more jobs that 
are just as good paying, and from the administration 
perspective, just as likely or more to be unionized or pay 
prevailing wage, as there have been with the previous 
technology. And I don't think anyone is asking us to be in the 
way of technology, but there is a real concern about how it is 
going to develop. To me, that is as much about maintenance as 
it is about what is going on in the manufacturing and 
deployment of these technologies. And we should be ready, I 
think, with resources to help people across any of the 
transitions that might have to happen.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you. And lastly, sir, secondary 
flight deck barriers were mandated by the FAA reauthorization 
in 2018 for new passenger aircraft only, yet there is still no 
timeline for when that mandate will come into effect. And 
myself and Josh Gottheimer recently reintroduced H.R. 911, a 
bipartisan bill that will apply to all commercial passenger 
aircrafts. Hopefully, sir, we can count on your support to be 
supportive of this critical safety measure. One of the 9/11 
Commission recommendations. I am asking if you would consider 
working with us on that issue?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. I am committed to 
implementing this legislation and all safety legislation to the 
maximum extent possible consistent with the timelines that are 
laid out.
    I know that FAA is currently drafting the proposed rule 
based on recommendations that have come in from their Aviation 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee. And I believe that draft rule is 
set to go out for public comment later this year. We will make 
sure to be in touch with you about progress there. And I, 
again, want to restate my commitment to making sure that we are 
complying with congressional intent.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. Yeah. We appreciate that, Mr. Secretary. 
All three of those issues are very important, secondary 
barriers obviously, and 9/11 Commission recommendation yet to 
be implemented. It is a bipartisan initiative. We look forward 
to working with you and your administration on this.
    Lastly, before I yield back my time, sir, one request. In 
the infrastructure proposal that you put forth, my request is 
that you include airports themselves in that infrastructure 
package. I know they haven't been mentioned much at all. I am 
sure that is not intentional, but that is rebuilding out our 
airport infrastructure is critically important. A lot of urban 
and suburban areas really depend on that as far as economic 
growth. So I would ask that you consider including airports in 
your package, sir.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. The national airspace may 
not be as tangible as roads and bridges, but it is part of our 
infrastructure and the airports are the most tangible part, so 
certainly recognize the importance of that.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Norton. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Carbajal, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And congratulations and welcome, Secretary Buttigieg. I am 
very grateful for your appointment.
    I want to start by saying a robust infrastructure bill 
needs to have bold investments in order to get our 
infrastructure to a state of good repair. This includes funding 
to fix our roads, bridges, schools, airports, increase 
broadband access, help with housing needs, and support transit 
and water infrastructure.
    Not only will this help the American people across the 
Nation, but it can also be a jobs bill. If we do it right, this 
can help us recover from the economic shortfalls that resulted 
from this pandemic. This will be a win-win for the American 
people.
    While our committee does not have total jurisdiction over 
offsets, paying for this bill will include a number of 
financing options. One option that I think has a lot of merit 
and worthy of consideration is a national infrastructure bank. 
This is something I have worked on, and I have introduced a 
bill to establish a national infrastructure bank. As a matter 
of fact, my staff has shared it with your team. I also know 
that Representative DeLauro and others have worked for a long 
time on moving this same concept forward.
    I know you touched on this earlier, but can you please 
expand on the importance of establishing an infrastructure bank 
as an additional financing tool?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. And I want to applaud 
your initiative on ensuring that there are as many financing 
tools as possible to make sure we are mobilizing all the 
resources we can for that bold infrastructure vision that we 
share.
    The idea of the national infrastructure bank has, I think, 
been through many different proposals or versions in terms of 
what has been discussed in public. And I know that you and 
others have put more specific legislative shape to it. I think 
you will find the administration has a very open mind about the 
kinds of concepts that exist for creating more of that 
financial leverage.
    Of course, we have within the Department the Build America 
Bureau that has instruments like TIFIA and RRIF and that 
private activity bond mechanism I mentioned earlier, that I 
think can be a great starting point. But the ambition of what 
you are describing, I think, goes to another level. And we 
would love to explore ways that we could be doing things above 
and beyond what we have had in the past when it comes to 
mobilizing those kinds of resources.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Last week, we heard from business leaders who made the case 
that tackling climate change and growing our economy go hand in 
hand. H.R. 2, the Moving Forward Act, that I and my colleagues 
on this committee helped write under the leadership of Chairman 
DeFazio, included several provisions to build our 
infrastructure for the 21st century that includes electric 
charging stations and hydrogen fueling infrastructure.
    Can you delve further on what some of the administration's 
priorities are in terms of tackling climate change and how 
electric charging stations and hydrogen fueling infrastructure 
can be part of the solution?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, when it comes to incentivizing 
Americans to adopt electric vehicles, we know that one of the 
biggest reasons somebody would think twice before acquiring one 
is wondering whether it has got enough range to get them where 
they need to be. That is why the President committed to a major 
expansion of electric vehicle charging stations in the U.S., 
and it is very much part of our emerging infrastructure vision.
    Hydrogen fuel cells also hold great promise as a zero-
emissions fuel source, though they haven't been adopted yet as 
widely and are not as likely, as of today, to be manufactured 
in the U.S. But again, there is a lot of promise and potential 
there.
    We view that as going hand in hand with the ongoing process 
of reducing the cost of these because that, in turn, takes away 
the other main reason people would hesitate to switch, which is 
that it simply might cost more than traditional fuel. Again, 
that is changing too. But we need all of these things to happen 
at once. That is just the vehicle side.
    More broadly, across surfaces, it is making sure that 
people have different alternatives, enhancing access to transit 
and transit-oriented development, and decarbonizing the 
maritime and aviation sectors as well. All of that has to 
happen at the same time if we are going to meet our goals, 
which, of course, failure is not an option when it comes to 
those goals.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. And lastly, we know that the 
recently enacted PIPES Act of 2020 modified the unusually 
sensitive areas U.S.A. mandates for the 2016 act, which would 
give PHMSA what it needs to finish its outstanding rulemaking. 
Additionally, the bill included a provision requiring a study 
on the installation of automatic and remote-controlled valves 
on existing pipelines located in sensitive areas.
    Like the U.S.A.'s commercially navigable waters or high-
consequence areas, pipeline safety measures are important to 
coastal districts like mine, where we have seen multiple oil 
spills, the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the 2015 Plains 
All American spill. Can I get your commitment to press forward 
to finalizing these pipeline safety measures once and for all 
and get them over the finish line?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes. We want to make sure that we are 
following through on all of these pieces and appreciate the 
support from Congress to build up the resources in the Pipeline 
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration so that we can 
meet that congressional goal.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Norton. I call on, next, Mr. Burchett--I am sorry, Miss 
Gonzalez-Colon who has come back, Miss Gonzalez-Colon.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you hear 
me now?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes.
    Ms. Norton. I can hear you.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
    And congratulations, Secretary, for your confirmation. I am 
happy to hear you today.
    And I will just go directly to two of the most important 
issues regarding Puerto Rico. And I am pleased that you, in a 
recent interview in January of this year, you support statehood 
for Puerto Rico, and we voted for statehood in November of last 
year.
    So my first question will be, as you may know, Puerto Rico 
receives inferior treatment in terms of the highway funding 
through a block grant for our infrastructure needs. Under the 
current FAST Act extension, which is going to expire on 
September 30 of this year, the island has received roughly $158 
million annually, but of those, just $117 million after the 
penalties.
    H.R. 2, the INVEST in America Act, will raise that level to 
$200 million for 4 years. However, when Puerto Rico becomes a 
State, recent analysis based on the Federal Highway 
Administration, six core criteria State formula funding for 
Puerto Rico, demonstrates that the island will receive roughly 
$430 million annually if we become a State.
    Based on this information, would you agree that Puerto Rico 
should be treated as a State in terms of changing and 
transferring Puerto Rico from a block grant to formula funding 
at the State level?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So it is very important to me and to 
the administration that U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico are 
treated equitably in every regard, and that certainly includes 
making sure that the flows of support for infrastructure 
reflect that.
    I would want to make sure I get a better understanding of 
some of the numbers that you just reviewed. But just want to 
restate my commitment to making sure that there is parity and 
equitable treatment for fellow U.S. citizens on the island.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Secretary. And will you 
have your staff provide technical drafting assistance to ensure 
this language can be included in the next surface 
transportation bill that Congress needs to pass, and we can 
work in that bipartisan way, not just with the committee, but 
with your office so we can discuss this in a further way?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. I will make sure to set up 
a conversation to see how we can be of assistance.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. The other issue that for us is very 
important, we have an exemption for the next 2 years from air 
cargo, from air cabotage laws. And this exemption is critical 
to turning Puerto Rico into an air cargo hub, not only to 
generate economic activity, but to take advantage of our robust 
manufacturing base, not just for sale of medical devices, but 
to diversify our economy and would put Puerto Rico and the 
United States in the global area in Latin America. And 
currently, Alaska has an exemption that has helped the 
Anchorage airport to the number three cargo hub in North 
America.
    As Puerto Rico continues to address our financial 
situation, a report issued by the Census Information Center 
said that air cargo for Puerto Rico will have an impact of more 
than $400 million in new direct and indirect economic activity. 
The last report of International Air Transport Association 
takes that into what could be a great demand for Puerto Rico 
and for Latin America as well.
    In that sense, I just want your office to review a bill 
that is H.R. 1824, the Puerto Rico Air Cargo Industry 
Empowerment Act. And I would love your office to work with us 
in terms of looking ways to extend that waiver that we do have 
for 2 years to make it permanent, that we work with your office 
in that sense.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you for raising this. We will be 
sure to look at this and make sure to be responsive on looking 
at what could happen for the future.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. My last comment, Secretary, will be in 
terms of giving you an open invitation to visit Puerto Rico and 
to see the infrastructure needs after the hurricanes and 
seismic activity of the last 2 years. So I would be very glad 
if you can visit the island with the Governor to see firsthand 
the investment of Federal funds in our highways and funds that 
were approved by the Community Development Block Grant and 
FEMA.
    So, with that, you have an open invitation for the island. 
And, again, thank you for supporting statehood for the island. 
I do support it. We voted for that in November of last year.
    So I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
    Ms. Norton. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Brown, I recognize Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. I want 
to thank you for visiting my district, the UPS facility, and 
the great work that they are doing in the vaccine distribution 
operation. I also want to thank you for meeting with the 
Greater Washington Partnership to discuss our shared vision for 
transportation in the National Capital region and the region 
between Richmond and Baltimore.
    I also want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your 
commitment to a big and bold approach to our Nation's 
infrastructure and how that gives us a tremendous opportunity 
to create jobs, revitalize communities, meet the challenge of 
climate change, and ensure equity for all.
    Equity in transportation requires transit to be a core 
component of big service transportation projects. 
Unfortunately, this has not been the case regarding a proposed 
project in my district and in the National Capital region, 
which is the State of Maryland's I-495 and I-270 Managed Lanes 
Study project, the details of which you will soon receive from 
me and other Members of the Maryland congressional delegation 
in a letter.
    And you will see that the MLS project has several 
deficiencies, including a lack of genuine consideration of 
transit options and phasing inconsistencies between the 
procurement process and the NEPA required plan environmental 
impact statement. I believe this project is based on a dated 
and inequitable approach to improve an infrastructure that is 
out of step with the Biden-Harris administration's modern 
vision.
    My question, Mr. Secretary, in a large surface 
transportation project intended to alleviate congestion, can 
you briefly articulate the importance of having transit options 
as it relates to the administration's goals for promoting 
equity and addressing climate?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes. And thank you for the question, 
because this is a scenario that really demonstrates how 
questions of efficiency, questions of climate responsibility, 
and matters of equity and environmental justice all come into 
play at the same time.
    We have got to make sure that we are creating options and 
creating infrastructure that allow Americans of every 
background and at every income level to get to where they need 
to be. And transit is a very important part of that. Indeed, we 
want transit to be a means of choice for as many Americans as 
possible to efficiently be able to move around their area. But 
I have heard from many of your constituents and neighbors and 
will stand by to hear the forthcoming letter laying out these 
concerns in greater detail. Because we also know that a 
misguided investment can actually exacerbate the problem or it 
can be a temporary fix that doesn't really deal with the 
holistic issue of how people get around. As the chairman 
mentioned in his opening comments, there are cases where you 
can add a couple of lanes to a highway, only to find yourself 
in the same situation a few years later.
    Now, I say that without prejudice to any individual project 
because, of course, it depends on the circumstances of the 
project. But we know across the board that the more robust 
options individuals have, the more ways there are to get to 
where you are going, the more freedom you have to have 
excellent transit options available to you, the better off you 
are going to be economically. And that also helps us reduce 
emissions in neighborhoods, disproportionately communities of 
color, that have often had highways and other projects go 
through them with an increase in pollution that comes with it.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, last month, you made a 
statement on a cable network, and I am paraphrasing, but you 
said the U.S. shouldn't have to settle for less than the rest 
of the world in high-speed ground transportation technology. 
Now we have got to get to the next level.
    You referenced the high-speed rail technologies being 
developed in Japan. Now, I know from experience in my district 
that if these types of projects are going to occur, there has 
to be robust involvement as well as a commitment to equity and 
climate change goals [inaudible] the President's support that 
you just articulated.
    I wonder if you might elaborate on the high-speed rail 
technologies that you are contemplating.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes. Thank you. We see a ton of 
opportunity to extend prosperity and convenience for Americans 
through high-speed rail. But as you say, this has to be 
deployed in a way that takes community considerations into 
account. And too often, there is a troubling history in the 
U.S. of that not happening. Often that didn't happen with the 
Interstate Highway System, so now is our opportunity to get it 
right with future investments, whether we are talking about 
highway, rail, or any other mode.
    A lot of the technology is already there. We know that 
because our counterparts in other countries enjoy it on a daily 
basis, can take it for granted even. And to my earlier 
comments, I just don't see why Americans should be expected to 
settle for less.
    Mr. Brown. And would you consider magnetic levitation 
technology as part of that vision for high-speed rail 
technology which should be considered?
    Secretary Buttigieg. It would certainly hold to that 
potential. It is different from, of course, what we have 
deployed by and large in terms of what we do have by way of 
moving closer to high-speed rail. But when you consider the 
efficiency and climate possibilities there, it is certainly 
worthy of a good look.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Norton. For 5 minutes I call on Mr. Burchett.
    Mr. Burchett. Burchett, Chairlady. Thank you.
    Ms. Norton. Burchett. I am sorry.
    Mr. Burchett. Yes, ma'am.
    United States has a huge waste crisis, Mr. Secretary, and 
over 90 percent of recyclable plastics end up in our landfills. 
The United Kingdom is using recycled bottles as a binder in 
road construction as a substitute for oil. Do you support this 
innovative technology to reduce waste and improve our roadways? 
And I wonder if you support any other initiatives just like 
that.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I would love to learn more about 
that specific technology. And I am so appreciative you raising 
that question of how we--literally how we pave our roadways. 
You know, the way we do that looks, I think, a little too much 
like what it looked like 100 years ago. And there are so many 
possibilities in terms of recycled materials, in terms of lower 
emission solutions, even the possibility of carbon capture in 
certain kinds of cement. And something important in many 
communities like where I come from, permeable pavement 
solutions that allow water to pass through rather than having 
it run off, which can lead to a big savings and environmental 
benefit when it comes to wastewater and stormwater.
    So for those reasons and more, I am very eager to see the 
U.S. leading when it comes to surfacing and pavement 
technologies and possibilities. I will make sure to learn more 
about the specific opportunity that you raised.
    Mr. Burchett. Yes. I suspect there are some environmental 
concerns with plastics, but I believe if you dig deep enough, 
some of those are probably being pushed by Big Oil. So you keep 
an eye on that, I would appreciate that.
    The 2016 GAO report on highway safety titled ``More Robust 
DOT Oversight of Guardrails'' included recommendations to 
direct the Federal Highway Administration to establish a 
mechanism for third-party verification on crash test labs. 
These recommendations have not been fully implemented. They 
risk the integrity of roadside hardware like guardrails. Would 
you commit to working with my staff to update these crash test 
lab requirements and oversight?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I would. We want to make sure that, 
given that safety is our top priority, that that is something 
we are managing, not just with regard to the design of 
vehicles, but to the design of the roadways that those vehicles 
are on. And that means making sure that guardrails and any 
other relevant technology are keeping up with the times. Again, 
something that has evolved a great deal in terms of the safety 
capabilities. And needless to say, on anything that has been 
prescribed by Congress, we want to meet those mandates and 
deadlines as expeditiously as possible.
    Mr. Burchett. Great. There are currently 276 million 
vehicles on the road today, about 4 percent of those are 
electric. But if we transitioned each of these to a battery or 
electric, could the U.S. energy grid handle this new load?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So that is part of what we are working 
with the Department of Energy to make sure we are prepared for. 
There is going to be a lot of shift in the sources and 
distribution of load from a charging perspective and when you 
look beyond the vehicle opportunity, other uses of electricity 
in the U.S. And as we have seen most recently and upsettingly 
in the case of Texas, our electrical infrastructure is not 
always poised to keep up with the reality we are living in.
    Ultimately, there is no reason America shouldn't be capable 
of powering every electric vehicle that we produce. But we do 
need to make sure that we have the right infrastructure to back 
up that aspiration.
    Mr. Burchett. Right. So, currently, I guess the answer 
would be no, but the--and I appreciate that.
    Current battery technology requires a minimum of 40 
minutes, as you know, per parcel charge as opposed to gas-
powered vehicles, or even a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, which 
only requires 4 to 6 minutes. Has the Department studied the 
challenges asking consumers to accept such a drastic change in 
behavior?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, this is part of why I think we 
need a very well-designed electric vehicle charging network. On 
one hand, as you note, the current loading time or charging 
time for a vehicle is not comparable to what you get at the gas 
pump. On the other hand, electric vehicles can be charged right 
in your backyard in a way that, of course, none of us would 
want to install a gas pump in our backyard. So we really have 
got to recognize that there is going to be a balance of how 
charging happens that is not quite the same as what we are used 
to in terms of how fueling happens.
    But at the end of the day, for long-distance travel, there 
need to be charge points along long-distance corridors, and 
that, I think, is one of the areas where Federal policy is 
going to play an important role.
    Mr. Burchett. And I suspect technology is going to have to 
catch up to the--either that or they are going to have more or 
less, like, propane tanks, you just pull up and pull in and get 
a battery like you would a propane tank.
    Recently, a DOT-sponsored study demonstrated that fully 
autonomous long-haul trucks can lead to more jobs, 
productivity, and economic growth. What concrete steps is the 
Department taking to promote safety and swift deployment for 
automatic driving technologies for trucking?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, right now, most of our safety 
regulations are built around the assumption that there is a 
human driver in the cab of the truck or in the seat of a 
passenger car. And it is something that really doesn't fully 
mesh with how these vehicles operate. For example, we might 
regulate where a mirror ought to go in a way that makes sense 
for a human driver but doesn't really play the same role if we 
are talking about sensors rather than mirrors.
    These are the kinds of things where policy is, in my view, 
behind where the technology is. We have lost something on the 
order of 40,000 lives on U.S. roadways. So we know that human 
drivers have not had the best track record when it comes to 
safety, but that doesn't make it automatic, so to speak, that 
an automated system is fully safe until we vetted that out. We 
need to make sure we are providing the kind of regulatory 
certainty and safety infrastructure for consumers and companies 
alike to know what to expect so that that kind of technology 
can meet its potential.
    Mr. Burchett. On a different note, what current and future 
resources are available to the Department to establish 
minimum----
    Ms. Davids [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired. 
The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Burchett. I appreciate that, Chairlady. If you could 
ask----
    Ms. Davids. I would encourage you to submit a written----
    Mr. Burchett. I will. But if you could ask leadership, and 
I will ask leadership in my party as well, if they could get us 
the proper bandwidth. This is probably, outside of voting on 
the actual bill, this is the most important thing we are doing.
    Ms. Davids. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Burchett. It is embarrassing that we can't do these 
committees.
    Ms. Davids. OK. We are going to move on to the next set of 
questioning.
    Mr. Malinowski, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good to see you, 
Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Likewise.
    Mr. Malinowski. So a couple of my colleagues have already 
mentioned the Gateway project, and so I just want to start by 
thanking you for the work that you have already done. It is 
really great for us to have such a strong and true partner in 
recognizing that we need to replace this 110-year-old tunnel 
and the infrastructure around it. I am really grateful for the 
FTA's quick action in reversing that Trump-era policy that 
counted Federal loans as part of the Federal share of big 
projects, I thought that was an important step. And you have 
mentioned already today the need to get the environmental 
impact statement done. We also need to rewrite the project. So 
thank you for the work you are doing with our local and 
regional authorities.
    I would say the only question that I would ask is, you 
know, barring unforeseeable events, would you say that these 
administrative steps that you are going through are steps that 
could be completed this year?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I will tell you, when it comes 
to the updated environmental impact statement, knowing that 
obviously there is a lot of different players involved and FRA 
is working with the New Jersey Transit, the Port Authority and 
others on a detailed schedule, we intend for that part of the 
NEPA process to be complete in the second quarter of this year. 
So I know there are a lot of other hurdles and funding pieces 
in play, but I want to at least share that much that we are 
very much hoping to meet that timeline.
    Mr. Malinowski. That is fantastic. We want to see the work 
getting done.
    You have mentioned the economic importance of this project, 
not just to our region, but to the country. It is 20 percent of 
the national GDP and, you know, I would just ask all of us to 
imagine what would happen if the one railway tunnel that 
connects New York with everything south of New York were to 
disintegrate, which is what will happen if we don't replace it. 
So, again, thank you for your work on that.
    And let me make a broader point. When we think about this 
project back in New Jersey, we are not just thinking about our 
daily commutes. There is something even more fundamental, I 
think, going on here, and that is a sense that the United 
States needs to build big things again and that we haven't been 
doing that in recent years. You mentioned the interstate 
highway program in your testimony. That was, in its time, a big 
and transformational project. It revolutionized how we get 
around in America.
    Do you by chance know how much the Interstate Highway 
System costs in today's dollars just by comparison, Mr. 
Secretary?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I want to say it is in the 
neighborhood of $250 billion, but I am not sure if I have my 
inflation math right.
    Mr. Malinowski. Yeah. In today's dollars, it was about $1.1 
trillion. So we were thinking big then. And we did it, again, 
partly for highway safety and efficiency, but, in fact, 
Eisenhower said it was as important to our national defense as 
to our national economy. We were thinking about the Cold War at 
the time, and we wanted to show the world that America could do 
big and bold things. And here we are in 2021 and, arguably, the 
greatest predictable economic transformation in modern history 
is the transition to clean energy. So if we are going to do 
something big and bold, obviously, it would not be just redoing 
the Interstate Highway System.
    Others have mentioned China. Let me just ask you, is the 
Chinese Government, in looking to compete with us, are they 
looking to compete with us in building highway overpasses or 
gas-powered pickup trucks?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I take your point. China or the United 
States will lead the transition to clean energy, and I want it 
to be the United States. And when it comes to big, bold vision 
more broadly, Chinese infrastructure averages about 8 percent 
of their GDP, and we expect that may increase. We are at 2.4 
percent here in the U.S., and I believe it shows.
    Mr. Malinowski. Yeah. That is exactly, exactly right. I 
think someone else tried to needle you about a ``China first'' 
economic and climate policy. You know, if our inaction were to 
allow China to get there first, wouldn't that be a ``China 
first'' policy?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, it would literally mean China is 
first to lead the world in clean energy and in these 
transitions. And, again, I would much rather see America be the 
first in that regard. Why let China lead us in infrastructure? 
We should be leading the way.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, sir.
    I yield back.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
    Ms. Davids. The gentleman yields.
    Mr. Johnson from South Dakota is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Thank you very much, Madam 
Chair. Mr. Secretary, thanks for being with us.
    Before coming to Congress, I was a vice president and a co-
owner of an engineering and consulting firm that did a lot of 
projects in rural America, particularly in the broadband arena. 
And we always estimated that Federal regulations added about 30 
percent to the cost of the projects, and you get the math, that 
is 30 percent fewer families that would get connected with 
those broadband dollars. That is 30 percent fewer small 
businesses that would get connected with those broadband 
dollars.
    I listened with interest to your point earlier that only 1 
percent of projects undergo a full environmental impact 
statement review. I am concerned that statistic might obscure a 
little bit the substantial cost of delay because of Federal 
environmental review and other regulations. By comparison, I 
would note that Canada and Germany, on average, do large 
project environmental review in 2 years or less. In America, a 
full EIS by the Federal Highway Administration, the average 
length is about 7\1/2\ years. And obviously, those delays have 
real costs. One group estimates it at $3.7 trillion of economic 
loss because of those delays.
    So I loved your opening remarks, Mr. Secretary, where you 
talk about turning aspirations into action. And so I think, you 
know, my question would be, are there things that Canada or 
Germany are doing that are making it so much easier to put 
their aspirations into action? What can we learn from their 
speedy but thorough environmental review?
    Secretary Buttigieg. You know, I think it is a great 
question, and I have challenged my team to look at exactly what 
you are describing. We are not the only country that has 
rigorous expectations for environmental review, and I think we 
should not hesitate to learn from others who have found a more 
expeditious way to do it. Of course, we have a unique Federal 
system where often local, State, and Federal authorities are 
all in play.
    But what we know is that there is a real demonstrated need 
for a lot of these projects and time for all of these projects, 
and time is money. And so it is our intent to identify anything 
that is duplicative, anything that is done in seven steps that 
could just as well be done in four. Anything that is not 
meeting the intent or the needs of those laws on environmental 
or the other, of course, laws that are kind of under the 
sometimes misleading name of NEPA that are all considered as 
part of that review and try to make it as user friendly and as 
simple as possible. I agree that there is a concern about cost 
and time added to projects by review.
    At the same time, I want to note that AECOM did a study 
recently on what was the number one reason why projects don't 
happen, and the number one reason is funding. My hope is that 
this can be both hand, that we can get the funding that is 
needed and make sure that we are acting to make sure that 
funding get outs efficiently.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Well, then, thank you, Mr. 
Secretary, for that. We do want to help you put those 
aspirations into action. I would echo the comments of the 
gentleman from Alaska. I mean, we really want you to work with 
us. And I think this powerful rhetoric about bipartisanship and 
infrastructure, we have just got to figure out a way to make 
that happen. I, like a lot of my colleagues, I think, on both 
sides of the aisle, have, at times, in this new administration, 
been disappointed with maybe how bipartisanship is defined.
    I will close in the last minute, Mr. Secretary, by just 
calling your attention--I know you pay attention to it--but 
calling your attention to the dire condition of infrastructure 
in Indian Country. And I will introduce into the record some 
photographs from Indian Country in South Dakota. This is from 
the Yankton Tribe, as an example [displaying photo on cell 
phone]. Others where roadways have completely fallen into the 
ditch, washed away [displaying photo on cell phone]. And I am 
looking forward to working with you to address some of these 
critically important rural infrastructure needs. Thank you for 
your time. And, Madam Chair, I yield back. If the Secretary has 
something he wants to add about rural highway funding, and in 
Indian Country, of course, Madam Chair, he can do so.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Just very briefly, let me embrace that 
important consideration. Part of being equitable is making sure 
that communities otherwise left out are getting the resources 
and attention they need. And that is certainly important when 
it comes to Tribal lands and rural communities, more generally.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Thank you, Madam Chair, I 
yield back.
    Ms. Davids. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Stanton is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary, it is 
so good to see you again.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Same here.
    Mr. Stanton. It seems like yesterday we were hanging out at 
mayor conferences together. So I am really glad that a great 
mayor is leading our Nation's Transportation Department. And as 
a local government leader, one learns very quickly the value of 
infrastructure to our economy, to our environment, our safety, 
our quality of life. During my time as mayor of Phoenix, I 
proposed and asked voters to approve the single largest 
transportation infrastructure plan in Arizona history, the 
first of its kind in scope in the Nation to exponentially 
expand public transit, including our light rail system and 
modernize our roadways.
    And the voters of Phoenix said, yes, by an overwhelming 
margin. And one of the first things we did was invest in the 
extension of light rail into South Phoenix to connect transit-
dependent individuals to new economic opportunities. Beyond 
that plan, we made other key infrastructure investments, 
including hundreds of millions of dollars to renovate Sky 
Harbor International Airport.
    And what we both experienced as mayors, though, is that 
Congress hasn't always been the best partner when it comes to 
infrastructure. And so a major infrastructure package is 
essential for America and for Arizona. Arizona is the second 
fastest growing State in the Nation. And growing communities 
have growing needs, and that starts with transportation.
    We need the Federal Government to support light rail 
through Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe, and beyond, and to support the 
construction of new highways, such as Interstate 11, and the 
expansion of existing highways, including Interstate 10.
    The role of both the local and Federal Government is 
particularly important in Arizona, because State leaders have 
really fallen short when it comes to making infrastructure 
investment.
    We also have significant aviation needs, not only Sky 
Harbor, but the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, which supports 
our region's fast-growing East Valley. And we must not forget 
the extraordinary needs of our Tribal communities, including 
the 22 Tribal nations in Arizona. Infrastructure investment on 
Tribal lands from the Federal Government has been woefully 
inadequate, as we saw in the ``Broken Promises'' report. Tribal 
infrastructure investment is mostly provided through the Tribal 
Transportation Program, yet Tribes are barely able to maintain 
their roads under the current investment levels, let alone 
invest in large-scale projects, like expansion of Arizona's I-
10 that will improve safety and economic opportunity, on the 
Gila River in the community, or addressing more than 9,500 
miles of unpaved roads on the Navajo Nation.
    Mr. Secretary, it is great to have you at the helm of the 
Department. I look forward to working with you and hosting you 
in Arizona soon. I have a couple of questions. It is critical 
to ensure projects of national and regional significance 
receive Federal support. Section 1301 of the Moving Forward Act 
recognized the importance of these projects and the need for 
resources beyond the traditional Federal aid formula to make 
them a reality. Interstate 11, connecting Phoenix and Las Vegas 
is such a project. Completing the tier 2 environmental review 
is the necessary next step to advancing I-11 in Arizona.
    So I am hoping, and I am asking you, can I count on your 
support to provide the Federal support necessary to complete 
the tier 2 environmental work for I-11 in Arizona?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. I have heard a great deal 
from you and your colleagues and your neighbors in Nevada, too, 
on the importance of I-11, and we want to make sure that all of 
those Federal processes happen as expeditiously as possible.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you for that great answer. Next on 
transit, I appreciate your swift action to rescind the Trump 
administration's requirement that transit agencies provide an 
additional 10 percent of local funding under the Capital 
Investment Grant Program. In Phoenix, the Northwest Light Rail 
Extension program, it was awaiting engineering approval, when 
the Trump administration moved the goalpost and put their 
policy in place. And our local agencies, we did comply with 
that Trump administration requirement. Thank you for taking it 
away for future projects.
    But now that your Department has rescinded this additional 
local cost-share requirement, what options do project sponsors 
have, like Valley Metro and the city of Phoenix, what options 
do they have to get Federal funding share for these projects 
restored?
    Secretary Buttigieg. This is one thing we are going to 
continue reviewing in terms of all of our existing programs. We 
thought it was very important to change the guidance on that 
Dear Colleague letter, because that was really a way to restore 
that statutory basis that all of those authorities had been 
planning on to begin with.
    I think there is a lot more opportunity out there, 
depending on the particular proposal, using both our financing 
tools like TIFIA and RRIF, or grant tools. And I think that 
this is part of what we have, a great opportunity to expand 
with the kinds of legislation we are contemplating in this 
season.
    Mr. Stanton. And one final question, Mr. Secretary. When we 
do light rail projects, they are great for the economy, but 
they also, for small businesses alone, the construction 
project, it sometimes can be difficult. And I want you to look 
at additional ways that the Department can support small 
businesses, particularly, minority-women-owned businesses that 
are impacted by light rail development in the future. It is 
something that would help my community and other communities 
that are making similar investments.
    Secretary Buttigieg. We will make sure to do so. Thank you.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Ms. Davids. The gentleman yields. Mr. Van Drew is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Van Drew. Thank you for appearing before the committee 
to testify on a subject of interest to all Americans. We are a 
country of many communities, with diverse perspectives. 
However, there is universal recognition that we must invest in 
infrastructure if we want to continue American strength and 
prosperity into the 21st century.
    First, I want to tell you about my own community, the 
southern part of New Jersey. We are geographically, 
economically, and demographically a diverse community. We are 
the hustle and bustle of tourism and gaming. We are the 
pinelands and the wetlands. We are the Jersey Shore and the 
Delaware Bay Shore. We have miles of beautiful coastline, and 
we have thousands of acres of farmland. But we have a common 
identity of South Jerseyans together.
    Mr. Secretary, our people need better infrastructure. We 
need investment in roads, bridges, and dams. We need investment 
in dredging, broadband, and airports. Investments of this bill 
could make a generational impact on the South Jersey community. 
I am sure that everyone else on this committee feels just as 
strongly about their community's needs.
    That leads me to the main point I need to make: This bill 
needs to be an infrastructure package for all Americans. For 
years, Washington has talked about infrastructure as the end-
all and the be-all of bipartisanship. Now, it is our 
opportunity to show that there is still an American Dream, and 
that our country can still unite behind it.
    We cannot approach this bill like we have, quite frankly, 
earlier bills this year. There needs to be bipartisanship. 
There needs to be an investment in all American communities. 
Our country, the United States of America, needs us. They need 
us to work together.
    So, Mr. Secretary, does this administration commit to 
making this an infrastructure package for all Americans?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, sir. That is absolutely the 
intent of the President and of my Department, too. We recognize 
there are so many different kinds of communities with different 
needs and different characteristics. And we've got to be 
serving everybody, and everybody will be better off when we get 
this country the infrastructure it deserves.
    Dr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. In order to make 
this an infrastructure package for all Americans, the bill must 
be bipartisan. If it is not, then the needs of tens of millions 
of Americans will be ignored in this process, and their 
problems will be exacerbated.
    Mr. Secretary, while I understand that, ultimately, your 
congressional counterparts act of their own accord, are you 
committed to the position that this should be negotiated as a 
bipartisan infrastructure package?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, the President strongly prefers a 
bipartisan approach, and so do I. It has hopefully been 
reflected, as you have seen in the conversations that the 
President has hosted with Republican and Democratic Members of 
the House and Senate, and that is going to continue to be the 
way we want to proceed. We have got to get something done. And 
I think you don't have to be from one party or the other to see 
how important that is. And if there is any policy area left in 
America where Republicans, Independents, and Democrats can work 
together to get something done, I have to believe it is this 
one, because I have yet to see a Republican bridge or a 
Democratic pothole.
    Dr. Van Drew. So you are committed to that bipartisanship?
    Secretary Buttigieg. That is certainly our goal, and we 
hope to work with you and Members on both sides of the aisle in 
good faith to get there.
    Dr. Van Drew. I hope we do. I hope we do because America is 
watching. And this is truly our chance to show America that we 
still, at least in some ways, can function. Thank you, Mr. 
Secretary. I yield my time.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
    Ms. Davids. The gentleman yields. I will now recognize 
myself for 5 minutes.
    Thank you, Secretary Buttigieg, for taking the time to join 
us today. It is always a pleasure to hear from a fellow, self-
proclaimed, infrastructure nerd. As many folks know, I 
represent the Kansas Third Congressional District, and thanks 
to our central location, we are a major transportation and 
shipping hub for this country. And in my district, just like 
many across the country, we have roads, bridges, and highways 
that all are in critical need of update and expansion, highways 
like 69 Highway in Overland Park. And we also have transit 
agencies, like the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, 
who are staying on the cutting edge of public transportation 
with things like microtransit zero fare programs and innovative 
public-private partnership for our light rail system. These are 
the kinds of projects that are going to help keep our community 
safe and reduce congestion, while also bringing good union jobs 
and helping our small businesses that are really struggling 
right now.
    And as a former Midwest mayor yourself, you know that these 
are also the kinds of projects that can help connect 
communities, and cities, and, frankly, our entire country.
    In fact, Dwight D. Eisenhower, a fellow Kansan and the 
namesake for our State's IKE Transportation Program, was the 
architect of our national interstate highway. We heard the 
chairman mention that earlier. And that really was the first 
time that we linked all of the areas of this country--urban, 
suburban, exurban, rural. And right now, we are still relying 
on that infrastructure, the infrastructure our grandparents 
built.
    And under the leadership of the Biden administration and 
your leadership, we have the opportunity right now to build 
infrastructure that our grandchildren are going to be able to 
depend on and rely on. In fact, when we do that, we have to 
make sure that we are being intentional about the ways that we 
revitalize this infrastructure.
    And, particularly, as we have heard over and over again 
today, far too often, there are communities that are left out. 
Because whether you are in an urban area, like Kansas City, 
Kansas, or out in our more rural areas like Stilwell, Kansas, 
in my district, everyone deserves access to transportation and 
infrastructure,
    So, like many of my colleagues, before I get to my 
question, I do want to make sure that you know that you have a 
standing invitation to visit us in Kansas. Come to the Third 
Congressional District, you can see the opportunities and the 
needs of the district and, obviously, enjoy some of our Kansas 
City barbecue, which, in my opinion, obviously, unbiased 
opinion, is the best in the country.
    And with that, I would like, Secretary Buttigieg, for you 
to share with us a bit about how you think that these new 
infrastructure investments can help link the diverse 
communities that we have been hearing about today?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you, first of all, for the 
invitation. I remember encountering somebody with a Kansas City 
Barbecue Society judge ID number tattooed on their calf, and it 
was then that I understood just how seriously that that is 
taken where you are from.
    And I want to acknowledge and support what you are speaking 
to in terms of connectivity for everybody. We have got to make 
sure that the infrastructure investments we are, hopefully, 
about to make reach every kind of community, rural, Tribal, 
urban, suburban, and everything in between. And that means 
making sure there are adequate roadways. It also means making 
sure there are adequate alternatives that people can get to 
where they need to be, whether that is in a privately owned 
vehicle, or some other means of getting around.
    We know there is troubling history of how that hasn't 
always happened, leaving people in transit and transportation 
deserts, isolating communities. This time around, I think we 
can do something very different, something that is no less 
transformational than previous investments like those of the 
Eisenhower generation that you mentioned, but also more 
inclusive, and more supportive of lifting up every American.
    Ms. Davids. Thank you, Secretary. And I want to say thank 
you to you, to the Biden administration broadly. And also to my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle today for bringing up the 
needs of our Tribal communities in Indian Country. It is so 
important, and has, for a long time, been overlooked. And also, 
in the interest of time, I want to say thank you again for 
joining us today.
    I do have a question for you about Advanced Air Mobility, 
but I will go ahead and submit that to you in writing. And I am 
looking forward to working with you on what I hope will be the 
next generation of innovative infrastructure investment.
    And with that, I will turn over to, Mr. Guest, it looks 
like you are back on. We will recognize you for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Guest. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for taking time to join 
us today. I do, and I am glad to see in the statement that you 
submitted prior to your testimony where you say that you stand 
ready to work with Members of Congress on both sides of the 
aisle to deliver an infrastructure package that meets this 
consequential moment and ensures a future worthy of our great 
Nation. And I applaud you for that statement of bipartisanship. 
I believe that any infrastructure bill that ultimately passes 
out of Congress, if we are going to have the support that we 
need, it is going to require Republicans and Democrats working 
together, coming across the aisle.
    And I believe that a crucial component of that involves the 
flexibility of spending. I am greatly opposed to a one-size-
fits-all model. I believe that what works well in California, 
what works well in New York and Illinois will not work in 
Mississippi. Also, within the geographic confines of each 
State, I believe that what works well in one part of the State 
will not work well in the other.
    And, so, I would encourage you to continue, as we are 
seeking bipartisanship, to harp on the message of flexible 
spending, to give money to the States, let the States decide 
then how that money should be best invested in infrastructure.
    I want to talk very briefly about some of our livestock 
haulers. When I am home, I serve a very rural State. 
Mississippi is predominantly rural, and much of our economy is 
based on our farmers. And, so, when I am home meeting with our 
farmers, and I am home meeting with our livestock producers, 
they often talk about the challenges that they face as they are 
hauling animals and perishable goods across the country. Unlike 
many of the others that are involved in hauling nonperishable 
items, they are unable to pull off and stop on the side of the 
road once they reach some sort of hours-of-service deadline.
    And, so, I would ask that you, that the administration 
would work with Congress as we are seeking to try to address 
the challenges surrounding this issue. This is an issue that is 
very near and dear to my farmers, very near and dear to my 
livestock producers, and I would ask you to work with us as we 
seek to find a long-term solution to this problem.
    I also want to talk very briefly about what Dusty Johnson 
addressed earlier, and that is, involving permitting. When I am 
meeting with supervisors and mayors and elected officials, as 
we are talking about infrastructure projects, that we are 
seeking to begin construction here in my home State of 
Mississippi, I often get feedback about the length of time it 
takes from the time a project is drawn until we can actually 
begin construction.
    We know that in many cases, the permitting process, the 
environmental requirements that are necessary to begin 
construction, on average, now take up to 7 years. And we know 
that that is, on average, that some projects take decades for 
us to be able to get through the permitting process, and 
actually begin construction on those vital projects.
    And, so, what I would like to do is, I would like to ask 
you to speak for a few moments about what you will do to reform 
and improve the current permitting process that often delays 
many crucial infrastructure programs.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, that has been my experience as 
well as a mayor, and I think any time you are responsible for 
delivering a project, you are impatient to actually see it go 
into the ground. And any time we can do something to remove an 
unnecessary step that would prolong that, we ought to be 
looking at that. And I think there is opportunity there.
    Of course, we are not talking about cutting corners. These 
environmental and other regulations are there for a reason. But 
I think we can continue to meet the intent of those important 
rules, and allow for the community participation that comes by 
way of the NEPA process in ways that might be smoother, more 
user-friendly, and lead to more prompt project delivery.
    So, I am very open to working with you and others to 
hearing more specific examples and ideas from those who are 
dealing with these permitting processes and coming up with the 
most flexible solutions that we responsibly can.
    Mr. Guest. Well, and you know from your prior position, 
prior to becoming Secretary, that when you are dealing with the 
Federal Government, the regulations required on Federal 
projects differ, in some cases, very drastically to those on 
State projects. And, so, what I would hope that the 
administration would work toward is we would work toward making 
sure that while we are protecting the environment, that we are 
also doing so in a manner that, very quickly and efficiently, 
brings these projects to fruition.
    So, Mr. Secretary, thank you. I am out of time, so I yield 
back.
    Ms. Davids. The gentleman yields back. And Mr. Garcia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary 
Buttigieg, I know that many have already said it, but, again, 
let me thank you for testifying on the administration's 
priorities. And please know that there is an open invitation 
for you to come and visit the Fourth Congressional District of 
Illinois, and see what makes Chicago such a vibrant community. 
My district is a multiethnic, working-class community, where 
many rely on public transportation. The ability to afford a car 
is a luxury that many of my constituents simply do not have.
    Secretary Buttigieg, as you know, a factor in urban sprawl, 
struggling public transit systems, and communities carved up by 
roads and highways is the fact that disproportionate amount of 
Federal funding goes to highways. Currently, 80 percent goes 
there, and only 20 percent goes to public transportation.
    Will you commit to working with Congress to revisit the 
broken and antiquated 80/20 funding split that creates urban 
sprawl and disadvantages Latino, Black, and working-class 
families?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I welcome the chance to work with 
Congress to make sure we have the right level of support for 
transit. You should not have to own a car to prosper in this 
country, no matter what kind of community you are living in. 
And that means investing in our Nation's transportation 
infrastructure to expand affordable multimodal options, and 
that, of course, includes transit.
    I can tell that you one of the President's key priorities 
when it comes to building back better, is making sure that 
Federal spending reaches communities of all sizes. And, by the 
way, in my view, this is not only about transportation-specific 
investment, but also a transit-oriented development. Those 
should go hand in hand, and we should look for ways that 
different funding sources can rhyme with one another when we 
think about things that might flow through other Departments, 
too.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Well, that is music to my ears. 
And, additionally, Mr. Secretary, I have been working with my 
colleagues in the progressive movement on the Future of 
Transportation Caucus, which I co-lead, to shift the discussion 
on reducing transportation greenhouse gas emissions away from 
just electric vehicles, and to focus on reducing vehicles' 
miles traveled altogether. I believe that we need to be more 
deliberate in designating cities with not just transit-oriented 
development in mind, but also with equitable transit-oriented 
development, we need to ensure that we are improving our 
communities and reducing GHG in a way that is feasible for all 
people, not just replacing one economic burden for another.
    Will you, Mr. Secretary, commit to working to ensure that 
equity is a critical part of the sustainability conversation 
and help us advance policies that reduce vehicle-miles traveled 
rather than just trying to replace gas cars with electric 
vehicles?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, part of the solution is to make 
sure that our cars are cleaner, but part of the solution is to 
make sure people have alternatives in order to get around. And 
we don't assume in our transportation decisions that everybody 
would be able to, or would want to, be behind the wheel of a 
car. It is why we need to make sure that all of these different 
mobility options fit together. And as you rightly say, equity 
is inseparable from making sure we have that range of options 
for Americans.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, I want to 
thank you, again, for taking time to join us today. It lifts my 
heart to know that someone who cares about transit equity is 
heading up the Department of Transportation. And I look forward 
to your visiting my community, the Fourth Congressional 
District in Chicago, the Little Village Community.
    I promise you, we have the best Mexican food, the best 
Puerto Rican and Central American food found anywhere in the 
country. So we are eagerly awaiting to host you. Thank you.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you very much. I look forward to 
it.
    Ms. Davids. The gentleman yields.
    Mr. Nehls?
    Mr. Nehls. Yes. Can you hear me?
    Ms. Davids. I am not sure if you are on. You are 
recognized--yeah, we can hear you--for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Nehls. Thank you so much, Chairwoman.
    And Mr. Secretary Mayor, again, congratulations on your 
confirmation, and thank you for being here today. I would like 
to also thank you for your service in the Navy Reserve. I heard 
you are an old intel man in the Navy Reserve.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Nehls. I served in Afghanistan in 2014. I am old Army 
guy, an Army Reserve guy who served in Afghanistan in 2008. So 
I am sure we probably ate in the same dining facility a few 
times. But, again, thank you for that.
    This is a great conversation. I am looking forward to 
working with this committee. It is truly an honor to serve on 
this committee. I am a freshman, and I continue to learn each 
and every day. I am blessed to represent Texas' 22nd 
Congressional District, which is in southwest Houston.
    But, I have a question for you, and it really relates to 
the Highway Trust Fund, but I just kind of want to have a 
casual conversation with you for a few minutes. And my 
understanding of how all of these States, the individual 
States, contribute into this Highway Trust Fund. My 
understanding is that, you know, the Federal gas tax is like 
18.4 cents. And, so, we send an enormous amount of money from 
the great State of Texas into this Highway Trust Fund. And 
then, we get 95 percent of that back.
    So if we send in a dollar, we get 95 cents back. So we are 
considered one of those donor States. I don't know, are you 
familiar--have you heard of that donor State? And are you aware 
of what a donor State is and how many of them there are in this 
great country of ours?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, I know that the formulas can have 
that effect, and I have heard that to be a concern, 
particularly in Texas.
    Mr. Nehls. Yeah, and what it is, it is, I believe, that we 
are--I believe us and Colorado are the only two States 
currently that are considered donor States where we receive 
less funding back. I know that there are some areas, some 
States receiving 2, 3, even up to 600 percent. They contribute 
$1, and they get $6 back. And that should be a concern of mine 
in Texas is, you know, we are growing so much. We are probably 
going to add three congressional seats. I know Congressman 
Weber said we have more right-of-way than the entire State of 
Rhode Island, and we have a lot of roads and a lot of failing 
infrastructure. So that would be a concern. But the real issue 
is the formula and the way these formulas were written. They 
were dated back to 2005 from data used in 2000.
    So the question, then, would be is, would you agree that 
this formula should be updated to provide equity to all the 
States, and that Congress should update the formula and use 
modern datasets that are not outdated by 20 years?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I agree that the older a formula gets, 
the more likely you are to see some of these outcomes that 
don't appear to correspond to the way that travel patterns, or 
even just where people live, has shifted through time. And I 
would welcome an opportunity to work on how to make sure that 
this is something everybody can feel satisfied with, and to 
come up with approaches that wouldn't have to be revisited 
every year and have us reinvent the wheel.
    Mr. Nehls. I concur with you, and thank you for that 
because the data is almost 20 years old. And if there is only 
one or two States doing it, we probably have an issue there. So 
I want to thank you for that.
    I know it has been a very long day for you. You are 
probably getting a little tired. So I am going to take that 
other minute and just call it quits right now. And God bless 
you, and I look forward to working with you, sir. And you have 
an opportunity to do great things with this committee and for 
the American people. So, if we remain focused, and we can work 
together, I think you can be in history books for a very, very 
long time. So God bless you.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, likewise, and thanks very much.
    Ms. Davids. The gentleman yields. Mr. Pappas? Mr. Lamb? Oh, 
did he? Ms. Newman?
    Ms. Newman. I am here.
    Ms. Davids. Ms. Newman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Newman. Well, thank you so much. And good afternoon, 
Secretary Buttigieg, it is great to have you here. And if I am 
the caboose, and it looks like I might be, I am used to that, 
and the youngest of four. So, you get to get the lightning 
round with me. You don't even have to share long answers 
because I think our teams are getting us together. So I will 
ask more elaborate questions when we visit in person. So here 
is----
    Secretary Buttigieg. It sounds good.
    Ms. Newman. Are you ready?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Ready when you are, thank you.
    Ms. Newman. So first, do you promise to go big and bold?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Absolutely.
    Ms. Newman. Excellent. Do you promise to look at green 
workforce training as part of construction on infrastructure 
and new green projects overall?
    Secretary Buttigieg. It is a great concept. I think we need 
to make sure--look, this is our chance to break the old idea of 
climate versus jobs and demonstrate the job creation that is 
possible through good climate action.
    Ms. Newman. Good. And you get extra points for extra words. 
High-speed rail. Do you commit to looking at smaller projects, 
not just, you know, the one side of the country to the other 
side, meaning within a metro area, will you look at funding 
those projects?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Certainly. We have got a lot of 
different pieces that would come together here in order to get 
that national network we hope to have some day. And it is not 
just about the places maybe most associated with high-speed 
rail. I think that in the heartland, in the South, in many 
different parts of the country, there is a lot of opportunity 
here.
    Ms. Newman. OK. Final, final round. So microtransportation 
deserts, meaning those areas where frontline workers and 
essential workers have a gap in service because there is a 
train line that ends, and then it is 2 miles until they get to 
their bus. There are lots of innovative ride-to-connect acts 
out there right now that need funding, that would be a matter 
of funding, or working with private organizations and public 
funding. Are you open to that?
    Secretary Buttigieg. You know, this reminds me of an effort 
that we undertook in South Bend to try to help workers often in 
lower wage roles be able to get through that last mile. It is 
important to me that whatever we do in this regard is a 
supplement, or a complement, to the transit that is so 
important as a backbone in our communities. But I think we 
should look at anything we can do to address those microtransit 
deserts, whether we are talking about the ability to have some 
kind of last-mile supplement, or even just road designs that, 
right now, might entail, you know, folks who have to walk a 
quarter of a mile or a half a mile between crosswalks to get 
across roadways.
    So, even just being able to safely navigate on foot, let 
alone having more motorized ways of getting around. All of this 
needs attention if we really want to meet it when we say we 
will have equitable development and good transit for all.
    Ms. Newman. Well, excellent. You have garnered a collection 
of 20 points today. So good on you.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I will take it.
    Ms. Newman. Thank you for being with us today, and God 
bless.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks very much.
    Ms. Davids. Thank you.
    Ms. Mace, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Madam Chair. Someone is doing yard 
work next door. It is not me. So I hope that you all can't hear 
it.
    I appreciate you being here today, Secretary Buttigieg. I 
appreciate your service to our country. And I am very 
encouraged by the words I have heard today from Members on both 
sides of the aisle, and by your words together about working 
together. And I hope that we can do that. That is one of the 
primary reasons that I asked to be on the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, because I wanted to find a 
place, given how the gist of things are right now and in our 
country, to be able to be nonpartisan and to work together. And 
I hope that we can do that.
    After looking briefly over the administration's Build Back 
Better plan, I want to take some time to ask you about two 
industries important to the folks that I represent in South 
Carolina's First Congressional District, aviation and 
waterways. As you mentioned earlier in your remarks, the 
seaports of the United States are one of the top economic 
drivers for our country. And nowhere else is it more evident 
than in Charleston, South Carolina, where we have the 
Charleston Port. And I represent the port, and it is 1 in 10 
jobs for the State of South Carolina. Also, it is about $64 
billion to our economy as well.
    The impacts of the pandemic, as like all industries across 
the country, have had tremendous detrimental impact. And as 
global trade came to a halt last year, we were reminded of how 
important our ports and these gateways are to trade, to global, 
and to global supply chains.
    So, my first question to you is how does the administration 
plan to account for the needs of U.S. ports in the plan to 
build back better?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you for raising the 
importance of ports, which are unquestionably a vital part of 
our infrastructure. And I have had the pleasure of running 
across that beautiful bridge that is in your background and 
going right up past the Port of Charleston. I know how 
important that is that the Lowcountry. But also, ports are 
specific places in the U.S. that have consequences for us, even 
thousands or hundreds of miles inland because they really 
benefit the entire economy.
    We need to make sure that our ports have the right level of 
technology in order to keep up with what is happening in 
industry. We need to make sure we are supporting the workers 
who are in these ports. And one of the things that I viewed as 
very important in the Rescue Plan was making sure that we are 
supporting those workers who have been impacted by COVID.
    We need to make sure that as different kinds of automation, 
or lower emissions technologies come, they are deployed in a 
way that is effective. But, again, that also we are doing it in 
a way that is supportive of workers. And we need to recognize 
this is a national priority, whether you live close to a coast 
or not.
    Again, this is one of those very interagency areas that 
implicates a lot of parts of the Federal Government, not just 
the DOT. But we stand ready to do our part to support the 
maritime sector in ports and communities like yours.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you. And will your office and the 
administration--I know that we were going to sound like a 
broken record today--commit to working with the Port of 
Charleston, helping prioritize some of these investments in our 
infrastructure and our port here in Charleston, especially to 
be future-proof?
    Secretary Buttigieg. We would welcome that opportunity. 
And, again, these are the kinds of things I think we have an 
opportunity to make a step change in, if we have the right 
level of ambition on the overall infrastructure package that we 
hope to move through.
    Ms. Mace. Right. And I only have 1\1/2\ minutes left. So I 
am going to go to aviation, go from boats to airplanes real 
quick. Recently the $1.9 trillion relief package, the Aviation 
Manufacturing Jobs Protection provision, established a 50/50 
cost share program between the industry and the Federal 
Government. And I know that Boeing is also in my district. We 
have the Dreamliner 787 being manufactured here. They have a 
sizable presence. But they would be excluded from 
participation. And I believe they were going to pass on it 
regardless because they weren't going to intend to use Federal 
relief grants. But the program is still of interest to them and 
to me and the hundreds of workers at the Boeing plant and 
elsewhere for those benefits. So do you have a timeline of when 
that program would be stood up in the future?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, this is one that falls within the 
DOT's responsibilities to prepare. As you know, the aviation 
industry support that was in the first two rounds of the 
payroll support program was in Treasury. Although, of course, 
we have worked closely with them. But the aerospace 
manufacturing relief program that was funded in the Rescue Plan 
is set to be managed by the DOT.
    So we want to work as expeditiously as possible to 
implement that, and we are doing everything we can to make sure 
that we meet all of the legal requirements and stand up the 
right capacity so that that can flow as quickly as possible, 
while balancing, of course, the need to be ironclad in our 
confidence that the taxpayer dollars are being protected and 
well-spent.
    Ms. Mace. Right, and I just want to thank you for your 
time. You have been literally been with us, I think, almost all 
day today. And the beautiful Ravenel Bridge that you see behind 
me, you have an open invitation to Charleston. I will run that 
bridge with you or maybe we can bike over one day. We would 
love to have you down here and visit and tour.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I would love it. Thank you.
    Ms. Mace. I yield back.
    Mr. Stanton [presiding]. Thank you, Congress Member Mace.
    Next up will be Congress Member Lamb.
    Mr. Lamb. And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for hanging with us 
all this time. It is good to see you again. I just want to hit 
a couple of points. I had told you around the time that you 
were coming on, about an effort, a bipartisan effort--and a 
number of people have asked you about bipartisanship today--a 
bipartisan effort to basically send money to our State 
departments of transportation. And in my mind, the most 
important reason for this is that it solves one of the problems 
that confront us with infrastructure, which is, how do we get 
people out on the worksite most quickly? You know, we have 
talked a lot about a lot of long-range, especially climate-
focused, issues today, which are really good, but they are 
going to take a while to build. You know, by definition, we are 
building something new.
    Sending money to the State departments of transportation, 
for the most part, can have people on the road, or the bridge, 
the next day or the next month.
    In my own district, for example, in western PA, we had 
about six projects canceled by Penn DOT, our State DOT, simply 
because they didn't collect enough gas tax revenue last year. 
And that happened in a lot of States.
    And so these are projects that were already planned, 
engineered, designed, permitted, you know, the whole 9 yards, 
and they got pulled on the goal line.
    And, so, as we put together a bill surrounding this, and 
line up more bipartisan sponsors, I just wanted you to be aware 
of it, and hope that you will prioritize both short-term 
infrastructure projects that can help us solve the unemployment 
crisis and the underemployment crisis, particularly, for 
construction workers and members of the trades, get them back 
out on profitable jobs right away. If you could prioritize that 
in addition to the things that we have talked about today, I 
would really appreciate that.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. I recognize the 
bipartisan work that you have done on this, and certainly 
understand that State and local authorities often have a 
pipeline of projects that are ready to go and just need the 
support to execute.
    So, I hear you on the need to make sure not only that we 
have got our 30-year, 50-year vision in line, but also that we 
are ready to go on the things that could be happening tomorrow.
    Mr. Lamb. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And I 
think it is an underappreciated aspect of this pandemic that 
even people who didn't lose their jobs permanently lost a lot 
of work hours, and construction workers and people in the 
trades are a big example of that. Just on the private 
construction side, a lot of financing has been frozen. There 
has been a lot of backups with construction materials.
    And, so, one role that your Department can play is to try 
to soak up some of that labor force and keep folks getting paid 
and working in the next 1 year or 2 years, not just the long 
term.
    The other thing that is related to this, I wanted to 
emphasize and ask about is, Buy American requirements. If 
things go according to plan, you will be overseeing hundreds of 
billions, maybe even trillions of dollars of spending and 
purchasing in the next few years.
    And we have a lot of Buy American laws on the books. 
Thankfully, on this committee between Chairman DeFazio and 
Members like Mr. Garamendi, we have an incredible amount of 
expertise about how to write those laws. But there always are 
loopholes and cracks, and there has been a lot of stories about 
foreign investors, particularly Chinese investors taking 
advantage of those, and having sort of shells and shields 
around themselves to evade Buy American requirements.
    So I know President Biden has placed some expertise within 
OMB to try to police this, but my question for you is whether 
you feel that you have adequate resources in your Department to 
really enforce and investigate and police Buy American 
requirements in your day-to-day operations?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thanks for asking. As you know, 
Buy American is very important to the President, to the 
administration, to our communities, and to me in this 
Department. And we are committed to making sure that domestic 
content is maximized across all of our grants and loan program.
    We are in the process right now pursuant to the President's 
Executive order of reviewing everything we can do to maximize 
the intent of that initiative. And sometimes that means 
reviewing the waivers and things that are already on the books, 
identifying those loopholes that you talked about, and seeing 
what other resources it might take to do proper enforcement.
    So, I would welcome the chance to come back to Congress if 
we feel that we need more resources or some other capability or 
authority that we don't yet have, but can tell you we are 
working diligently within the framework set out by the EO, and 
feel very confident that we will be able to meet those goals.
    Mr. Lamb. Glad to hear that and would be happy to have you 
come back to us and let us know if there are more ways we can 
help. I think we are at a very sensitive point, particularly 
when it comes to steel and metals, because it appears that 
China used the pandemic to continue overproducing, while we 
were essentially underproducing because of closure orders and 
slow down in the economy. And there is going to be a lot of 
dumping in the years ahead, and we will need to meet that with 
more force and willpower than we ever have before.
    So thank you for your commitment on that. Thank you for 
lasting today.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much.
    Next up will be Congress Member Van Duyne.
    Ms. Van Duyne. Thank you very much.
    And Secretary Buttigieg, Mayor, thank you for being with us 
today. Good to see you again.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Likewise.
    Ms. Van Duyne. As a former mayor myself, I hope your key 
understanding of the importance in empowering Governors and 
mayors and congressional Representatives and not Washington 
bureaucrats to address the needs of our communities will be 
reflected in your leadership and your approach to 
transportation policies.
    I am looking forward to working with you to develop 
bipartisan solutions to our country's infrastructure needs. I 
just had a few questions for you today.
    I am getting ready to go down to the border next week, and 
the crisis there is astounding. And its scale is thousands of 
illegal immigrants, enabled by drug cartels and human 
traffickers, enter the country on a daily basis, and many of 
them unaccompanied minors untested for COVID-19.
    Mr. Secretary, recently the CEO of Greyhound Bus had asked 
Homeland Security to provide assurances that any detainees 
released by ICE have proof of a negative COVID-19 test, similar 
to the proof required for international airline passengers who 
arrive at U.S. ports of entry.
    What conversations is DOT having with Homeland Security on 
the border crisis? And how can law-abiding Americans be sure 
that the border crisis is not the next super spreader event 
causing more mass lockdowns and travel restrictions?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, of course, this is an area of 
concern from a public health, as well as immigration 
perspective. I will defer to the Department of Homeland 
Security in terms of the direct handling of the border, as well 
as, of course, CBP. But I can commit that the Department of 
Transportation will be working in concert with DHS to do 
anything and everything that we can in order to support them in 
meeting their mission, and ensuring that there is safety, as 
well as expeditious handling of the conditions at the border.
    Ms. Van Duyne. Have you had any conversations to date with 
DOT on this?
    Secretary Buttigieg. With DHS, you mean? Specific to the 
communication from the bus company, I was not familiar with 
that. But I will take that back and make sure and follow up.
    Ms. Van Duyne. Not just specific to the Greyhound bus 
request, but about the border crisis in general, are you having 
conversations with DHS?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So, I am with DHS leadership and 
various interagency contacts from time to time. And they know 
that the DOT is ready to help in any way that we can.
    Ms. Van Duyne. OK. North Texas, and my district, 
specifically, are home to DFW Airport, American Airlines. And 
right next door is Love Field and Southwest. In fact, I think 
there are more aviation employees located in District 24 than 
any other district in the country.
    We have passed multiple relief bills out of Congress as a 
Band-Aid to stop the bleeding. But these stopgap measures will 
do little to stimulate the recovery of the industry. So how 
will you work with Congress to rebuild those jobs and make the 
industry stronger?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, first of all, I want to thank 
Congress for actions like the Rescue Plan, which led to air 
carriers being able to tell their employees that they could 
tear up those furlough notices. But we know that there is a 
long way to go for recovery in that sector, and in the country 
as a whole.
    I think a lot of what we have got to do is making sure that 
the sector remains at the cutting edge, whether we are talking 
about the implementation of NextGen technology, whether we are 
talking about being ahead of the curve in terms of efficiencies 
and sustainability, or whether it is the work that we do in 
international forums, where it is very important to stand up 
for the American air sector, as we are in those conversations 
with global partners.
    I think across the board, we have got to make sure that we 
are preparing for a future in which America remains the 
unquestioned global leader in aviation, and that starts with 
safety. It is one of the reasons why so much is at stake in 
ensuring that the FAA can meet its fundamental mission of 
seeing to it that American air travel is the safest in the 
world. I think all of the other economic gains we hope to 
pursue, they begin and end with that one.
    Ms. Van Duyne. OK. Troy Nehls, my counterpart in Texas, and 
another freshman, had asked you about the donor States. I want 
to push a little bit farther on that, because I think there was 
a point in there that he may have missed.
    Texas contributes $212 million more dollars to the trust 
fund than the State received. North Texas, and this is my 
point, north Texas is one of the fastest growing regions in the 
country with many people moving from highly taxed and highly 
regulated States, which is California and New York. So we 
consistently hear policy proposals for transportation spending 
to these States to solve their problem, but while ignoring the 
growth of regions, such as north Texas. So can you commit to 
ensure the equitable flow of grant dollars and programs to 
these high-growth areas?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Certainly, the equitable distribution 
of grant dollars is very important to me and to this 
Department. And we need to make sure that we are taking account 
of the fact that an area like north Texas, or any other in the 
country, may not look like it did when some of these formulas 
got locked in. And I do want to work on that together with you.
    Ms. Van Duyne. Excellent. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much.
    Next up is Congress Member Moulton.
    Mr. Moulton. Mr. Secretary, good to see you and 
congratulations. I was heartened by your opening remarks and 
the alignment with the chairman. Chairman DeFazio mentioned the 
Virginia Department of Transportation secretary, who explained 
to us how revolutionary it was for her department to approach a 
transportation problem with an open slate, a free market of 
options.
    Now, it turned out that the return on investment was much 
higher, and the overall cost much lower, half as much, for rail 
solution to her highway congestion problem. And maybe this is 
why nearly every other developed country in the world is 
building high-speed rail, but not America.
    Now, you and I have discussed my American high-speed rail 
bill, which fundamentally puts high-speed rail on the table as 
a proven alternative, legitimately for the first time in 
America, and then says, let us use basic business and economic 
principles to determine whether trains, planes, or automobiles 
make sense in the quarter in question. It gives Americans more 
options, States more freedom. And, oh, by the way, high-speed 
rail is better for the environment, better for downtowns, 
better for equity, and a much, much nicer way to travel, which 
is why business travelers in the free market, the world over, 
consistently choose it over flying or driving when they have 
the option.
    So, Mr. Secretary, States alone have spent $500 billion on 
highway projects in urban areas between 1993 and 2017. Has 
highway congestion increased or decreased over that time?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Certainly, we continue to see mounting 
problems with highway congestion.
    Mr. Moulton. It has gone up by 144 percent, which, of 
course, is way faster than population growth.
    Now, some people say that high-speed rail won't work in 
America, but Atlanta to Chicago is the same distance as Beijing 
to Shanghai, a route now dominated by a 217 mile-per-hour rail 
service built in just the last 10 years.
    Do you think high-speed rail would be helpful to decrease 
regional disparity between Atlanta and Chicago and places like 
Indianapolis, Louisville, Nashville, Chattanooga, and their 
intermediate communities?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Absolutely. And I want to thank you 
for pointing out that it is in the American heartland, as well 
as coastal States, that high-speed rail can make a tremendous 
difference.
    Mr. Moulton. Yes, and the same can be said for cities like 
South Bend, between Chicago, Detroit, and Indianapolis. The 
Chinese high-speed rail system has decreased regional disparity 
by about 25.7 percent. Over 25 percent, and we know that that 
is a huge problem in America.
    Now, even President Trump decried the fact that China has 
the world's fastest trains. And they export that technology all 
over the world, and people want to buy them. But his 
administration didn't do anything to fix that.
    If the Biden administration reverses that trend so that 
America once again leads the world, then this will absolutely 
not be putting China first, as one of my colleagues claimed.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Agreed. And if we want to see the 
strongest possible U.S. industry manufacturing this kind of 
equipment, then, of course, we would need to be purchasing it 
and investing in it to begin with.
    Mr. Moulton. Absolutely. And we need to have that option on 
the table. So, thank you for your vision, for your leadership. 
We look forward to working with you. As you said, we have a 
generational opportunity to invest in infrastructure, and we 
cannot squander it by investing in the last generation's 
infrastructure.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much.
    Next up is Congress Member Steel.
    Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, 
Secretary Buttigieg, that [inaudible] for coming out and 
testifying. You recently mentioned that you want more taxpayer 
funds for high-speed rail projects. The active administration 
at the Department of Transportation's Federal Railroad 
Administration has echoed the same requests.
    In 2009, President Obama spent $10 billion for high-speed 
rail projects, including $3.5 billion for California's high-
speed rail. And more than 10 years later, we are here with 
nothing to show for this huge waste of taxpayers' money. I 
don't think taxpayers should have to take another failed ride.
    Unsurprisingly, we saw major setbacks across the United 
States as the States tried to build new high-speed rail. This 
doesn't mean that I am against it, because I was raised in 
Japan, and I say it really works. But we saw the cost 
skyrocket, and three of the most significant rail projects in 
Ohio, Florida, and Wisconsin were canceled. For the California 
high-speed rail project alone, cost estimates have skyrocketed 
from the $33 billion originally proposed to upward of $100 
billion. And delays have gotten longer and longer with 
[inaudible] end in sight.
    [Audio malfunction.]
    Mr. Stanton. Congress Member Steel, I think we lost your 
audio.
    Mrs. Steel. This truly is a train to nowhere. [Inaudible.] 
Can you hear me now?
    Mr. Stanton. Yes. We can hear you now. Please ask the 
question again.
    Mrs. Steel. So in 2019, the Department of Transportation 
terminated its 2010 agreement with the State for high-speed 
rail, and stopped $929 million in taxpayer dollars from going 
to the project. The Department of Transportation said it made 
the decision because of the California High-Speed Rail 
Authority's repeated failure to submit critical required 
deliverables, and its failure to make sufficient progress to 
complete this project.
    So I am very much concerned that your Department has now 
moved to settle a lawsuit over these actions, when California 
continues to stay the same ongoing failure to manage the 
project to get spending in line. Just last month, it was 
reported that there is another delay, an $800 million cost 
increase.
    So, Secretary Buttigieg, after more than a decade of 
failure and billions of taxpayer dollars thrown down this high-
speed money pit, how could you assure America's hardworking 
taxpayers, they have been struggling so much, especially during 
the pandemic, continue to funding, wouldn't they waste it?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you for the question. I 
think it is an opportunity to express my conviction that the 
American people deserve excellent high-speed rail.
    Now, we clearly have not had the kind of resources or the 
commitment that other countries have. And somebody has had to 
go first, and in many regards, California has stepped forward 
to take the lead to advance high-speed rail. And, of course, 
the first projects are those we can expect to be the hardest 
while we build up both a network and an industry here in the 
U.S.
    I am glad that you mentioned the steps that were taken in 
2009. The first time there was really a robust offering of 
high-speed rail funding in the Recovery Act, only to note when 
that happened with $10 billion in funds made available, 39 
States requested nearly $75 billion in funding, demonstrating, 
in my view, the strong appetite and desire for this among the 
American people.
    We have obviously been challenged as a country when it 
comes to high-speed rail. But I do not believe that the 
American economy, or the American people, or American 
technology are inferior. And since we are not an inferior 
country, we should not settle for inferior capabilities when it 
comes to high-speed rail for every American. If other countries 
can do it, in my view, so can we.
    Mrs. Steel. Well, I totally agree with you regarding that, 
yes, we need it. But for especially California, that 
originally, the bill was $33 billion for the cost. Now it is 
over $100 billion, and it didn't even start yet. So where this 
cost is coming up, who is going it pay for this? Especially the 
failed high-speed rail, it is not even going to be even the 
high-speed rail. And they cut down a few miles. So it is going 
from nowhere to nowhere. So how can we waste more money on this 
failed high-speed rail in California, and where is that money 
going to come from?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, again, I cannot accept the 
proposition that America is not capable of succeeding on this 
or any other project. Clearly, we have to make sure there are 
rigorous controls to support the efficient use of taxpayer 
dollars. And we have got to make sure that going forward, we 
have got the kinds of support and the kind of alignment that is 
needed for project delivery that we know is going to be 
complex, given the relationship between local, State, and 
Federal authorities.
    But I also believe that we are up to this. I believe that 
America cannot but have a high degree of ambition and 
aspiration when it comes to rail, whether we are talking about 
California or any other part of this country.
    Mrs. Steel. So you [inaudible] California's high-speed 
rail?
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Steel. Your 
time is up.
    We are now going to move on to Congress Member Auchincloss.
    Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome Mr. 
Secretary. I appreciate you being with us for this long 
hearing. When you get to the freshmen, though, you know you are 
getting close to the end, so, you will get a break soon enough.
    When we last spoke, Mr. Secretary, we had talked about the 
Future of Transportation Caucus principles of equity, access, 
and sustainability, the pillars for me in how we evaluate 
transportation infrastructure. And as a former mayor, you were 
really a trailblazer on Complete Streets. And I want to ask you 
about how you see DOT investing in Complete Streets to expand 
access to jobs and services, to improve sustainability, and to 
create more equitable cities and towns for our constituents?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. The idea of Complete 
Streets, as you know, is to make sure that our streets and 
roads in our communities are set up to accommodate all kinds of 
travel. Yes, cars, but not only cars, that they are safe for 
pedestrians, accessible for bicycles and wheelchairs, and that 
they are part of an integrated plan for that neighborhood or 
that community.
    We took those steps in South Bend by converting a part of 
our downtown that had really been empty, or far too quiet for 
far too long, and found that we were able to reinvigorate it by 
making that transformation of what had been one-way highways 
going right through the heart of our community into a more 
Complete Streets approach.
    So I want to make sure that those kinds of gains are 
available to communities across the country. And it means 
making sure we align our Federal dollars to support communities 
that want to take this kind of approach. I think too often we 
have been beholden to measures that assume that the only thing 
that a road is good for is blasting through vehicle traffic as 
quickly as possible.
    Now, efficiency for vehicle traffic is always going to be, 
of course, an important part of what roads are there to do, but 
roads have to be in streets especially in the hearts of our 
cities, have to be places where vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles 
and businesses can coexist peacefully and safely. And that is 
the underlying philosophy that will be integrated in the way we 
approach our funding.
    Mr. Auchincloss. Mr. Secretary, towards this end of 
investing in Complete Streets that thicken the labor market by 
expanding the number of jobs and services within a commuter 
shed, I would like to make requests two requests of you and to 
hear your thoughts on them. The first to issue a definition of 
what shared mobility operators are in your notice of funding 
opportunities DOT. I think this would create clarity for 
micromobility vendors, as well as for carshare and on-demand 
transit services. And number two, to direct the FHWA and the 
FTA to issue clarifying guidance on the ability of recipients 
of highway and transit funding to use those Federal funds for 
shared mobility operators.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. I will take both of 
those ideas back. As you know, there has been such swift and 
complex development in terms of all these different 
micromobility and shared mobility companies and platforms. And 
we need to make sure that we are keeping up with that on a 
policy level and creating as much predictability as we can. So 
I welcome those ideas, and we will explore those going forward.
    Mr. Auchincloss. I appreciate it, Mr. Secretary.
    And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Carbajal [presiding]. Thank you very much. Mr. Stanton, 
I have been told that I have the gavel back, not to confuse 
you. Sorry about that.
    Mr. Stanton. You are in the lead, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. With that, up next we go to 
Representative Kahele.
    Mr. Kahele. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And aloha, Mr. 
Secretary, from Hawaii. It is great to see you today. And I 
also appreciate your time and effort today to appear before 
this committee. I know it has been going on 5 hours. When I 
started this hearing, it was dark outside here in Hawaii. 
Seniority does have its privileges, but I do appreciate your 
time.
    Mr. Secretary, I have a two-part question centered around 
the administration's Build Back Better national strategic 
plans, specifically as that relates to our airline and maritime 
industry, so that we can continue to ensure that we protect and 
invest in the middle class and create good-paying jobs.
    So, my first question is, President Biden has expressed his 
strong support for the Jones Act, and as Chinese companies with 
state support become increasingly dominant in the shipping, 
shipbuilding industry, and maritime supply chain, as Secretary, 
will you continue to support the Jones Act and support a major 
investment in the U.S. shipbuilding industry to support good-
paying union jobs, ensure the national security of the Nation, 
and protect the stability of the U.S. shipbuilding industry?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you for the opportunity to 
speak about the importance of supporting U.S. shipbuilding 
industry and our maritime industry writ large. I strongly 
support the Jones Act. As you mentioned, that is the 
President's view as well, because it makes sure that cargoes 
move between U.S. ports travel on vessels that are built, 
owned, and crewed by Americans.
    The Jones Act also ensures that we don't lose our domestic 
shipbuilding capability, so that we are not in the situation, 
as you pointed out, where Chinese-flag vessels could wind up 
being the only place we could turn to carry our domestic 
commerce on the Mississippi River or between Florida and New 
York. That obviously would have national security implications 
that are not acceptable. If we lose our national maritime 
industry, it might not return and the consequences would be 
devastating.
    So, I am going to continue to ensure that the U.S. Maritime 
Administration and DOT are doing our part, of course, 
recognizing that there are many U.S. agencies that are involved 
in the Jones Act and we will be doing everything we can to 
support that industry, as well as our merchant marine.
    Mr. Kahele. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, that's great to hear. 
One last question. So the chair, in his opening remarks, which 
I am grateful for, ended with the U.S. airline industry, 
specifically our Open Skies agreements with one of the most 
egregious bad actors, Norwegian Air, who, since 2016, when 
permitted to operate in the United States, has, just as 
predicted, undercut tax labor and safety regulations by 
operating and choosing to operate out of Ireland.
    Mr. Secretary, you will have oversight of our Open Skies 
agreements. And while these bilateral agreements have largely 
been successful, resulting in increased travel, I have grave 
concerns about their enforcement. And I am particularly 
concerned regarding potential labor arbitrage from the flags-
of-convenience airlines. So as you begin to work through the 
many issues we face, especially as it results to the airline 
industry, Mr. Secretary, will you work together with me to 
ensure that we enforce those agreements, and that any 
agreements include labor clauses that we adhere to that are 
made in those agreements for foreign air carriers?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I would welcome the chance to work 
with you on this. We need to make sure that these agreements do 
not put the U.S. sector at any kind of disadvantage. I can tell 
you within the existing framework, that we will adjudicate any 
application based on fidelity to those agreements, but, also, 
recognize with you that there may be scope to work with 
Congress on further steps.
    Mr. Kahele. Awesome. Mahalo, Mr. Secretary and mahalo, Mr. 
Chair.
    And I yield back my time.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Kahele.
    Next, we move to Representative Strickland, another mayor.
    Ms. Strickland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nice to see you, 
Secretary Buttigieg.
    As a former mayor and a former board member of a transit 
agency, I know how critical it is that transit systems can 
survive the pandemic, but also expand service, and this is a 
conversation about equity as well. So I am going ask you two 
questions: one about TOD, and then another one about one of my 
favorite topics, high-speed rail. So as we look to 
infrastructure on transit expansion, with a focus on housing 
feasibility. Because for so long, we have not linked housing 
with expansion of transportation. We know it is good for an 
economic recovery, and also employing thousands of union 
workers.
    So, for example, in my hometown of Tacoma, when we expand 
light rail, it will affect 57 percent of the population that is 
minority and 22 percent low income. But because of the pandemic 
and economic factors, there is a potential for project delay. 
Last Congress, this committee included, the House passed a 
provision to increase funding of total project costs to 
eligible Capital Investment Grant or CIG projects.
    So, can you tell us, Mr. Secretary, how the Department of 
Transportation will work to support similar programs and 
streamline the CIG program to prevent unnecessary delays, while 
also working with your HUD counterpart, another mayor, 
Secretary Fudge on TOD?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you for representing the mayors' 
club here, and for a really important question. I think mayors 
are compelled to consider all of the integration between 
different policy areas, and the structure of the Federal 
Government doesn't always reflect that. As mayor, you don't get 
to think about transit one week and housing the next. They are 
all on your plate all at the same time and all side by side. 
And I think increasingly we can break across those silos 
federally to do so. As a matter of fact, I reached out to 
Secretary Fudge right away when she was confirmed. And we have 
already had great conversations about this.
    There is no road without a context. It goes from somewhere 
to somewhere. And the same is true for every transit route. And 
we need to make sure that we are synchronizing what we are 
doing around housing and community development with what we 
seek to do around transit and transportation.
    As you mentioned, one of the powerful tools we have for 
that is that Capital Investment Grant Program, and there have 
been steps from the prior administration that changed how some 
of the relevant calculations were conducted in a way that they 
created more obstacles. And we are taking a look at that and 
what we can do to make sure that this resource really is there 
in all the ways it should be for our communities.
    So you have my commitment that we will not only make sure 
this tool is effective as possible, but that we will continue 
to integrate not only at my level with my counterparts in the 
Cabinet, but inviting my staff to do the same thing, because 
we, as every mayor does, we have to be integrating these 
considerations to have truly functional neighborhoods and 
transit systems in the future.
    Ms. Strickland. Great. Well, thank you for that, Mr. 
Secretary. And then a very quick question about high-speed 
rail. You know, we are talking about high-speed rail projects 
in different parts of the country. We are talking about Texas, 
we have talked about the Northeast, we have even talked about 
California.
    And I want to make sure that you are aware that in the 
Pacific Northwest there is the Cascadia Innovation Corridor, 
and we are considering what we are calling ultra high-speed 
rail. With that, we know that sometimes there are cities that 
are smaller that are left out of the transit hubs when we talk 
about high-speed rail.
    So are you able to talk about any sort of a commitment that 
you are willing make that when we talk about high-speed rail 
investments, that we are doing it equitably, geographic equity, 
and also, of course, the equity that we talk about having an 
inclusive workforce?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. Yes, on the first front, we 
need to make sure that no community is left out of these 
incredible capabilities. And that has got to be a very 
important part of system design and policy design, so that not 
just those communities that have the direct stops, but those 
around them are positioned to benefit. That is part of what it 
means to have an integrated network so people can get to where 
they need to be.
    On the latter point, I think that is no less important, 
making sure economically that the people who have been 
excluded, and let's face it, sometimes directly made worse off 
by past infrastructure investments, are being included and are 
benefiting, whether it is as workers on these projects, as 
owners of businesses doing business with Federal Government, or 
federally funded State and local projects, and, of course, as 
community residents benefiting from these investments.
    We haven't always got it right as a country, but this is 
our chance to do it right this time.
    Ms. Strickland. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, 
for your vision. And I am thrilled to have a mayor at the helm 
of transportation.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much. Next, we will move on to 
Representative Williams.
    Ms. Williams of Georgia. Hello. And thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, and thank you, Secretary Buttigieg, for holding on 
until you get to the last person of the day, I think.
    I want to go back--you were mentioning some disparities 
that were done in the past and transportation infrastructure, 
and so, I want to touch on that and discuss urban renewal 
projects. As you know, the creation of the Federal-Aid Highway 
Act in 1956 led to the segregation and displacement of people 
of color when highways were built right in the middle of Black 
and Brown communities. These highway projects led to the 
demolition of homes, schools, churches, and more. And Atlanta 
is a prime example of this occurring with the building of 
Interstate 75, 85, and I-20 through central Atlanta, which was 
predominantly Black in the 1950s and 1960s.
    So, my question is how do you suggest--building upon the 
conversation you were just having with Representative 
Strickland--how do you suggest that the Federal Government 
address and correct the inequities caused by the act, and the 
highway projects that followed?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thanks for such an important 
question. It really bears on why equity needs to be one of the 
pillars of our approach to infrastructure going forward. As you 
pointed out, Atlanta is one of many places that demonstrate how 
these kinds of investments of highways went through, divided, 
sometimes devoured or destroyed Black neighborhoods and 
neighborhoods of other minoritized groups, sometimes by 
neglect, but frankly, we must admit, sometimes on purpose as 
well. And we must take account of that active harm that was 
caused by Federal taxpayer dollars in deciding where future 
taxpayer dollars are going to go.
    This could be done in any number of ways. As you have seen, 
we have already made sure that things like racial equity are 
included in discretionary grants like the INFRA grant notice 
that just went out.
    But really, we have an opportunity to do it in the biggest 
way by making it a direct consideration in funding for 
infrastructure for the future.
    Of course, part of the answer also lies in a positive 
example from Atlanta, which is the way that under Mayor Maynard 
Jackson, the construction of the airport there became one of 
engines for the development of a Black middle class in Atlanta 
through ensuring that minority workers and contractors were 
able to see the economic benefit from those public dollars 
being spent. That is one of the reasons why I feel a lot of 
urgency to make sure that we are strengthening the capabilities 
of our DBE programs here at the Department and across the 
administration so that whatever flows of funding Congress may 
choose to send our way are going out equitably too.
    Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you. And I would love to 
talk more later on how Congress and the administration can work 
together to revitalize these urban centers.
    But I also want to talk about infrastructure reuse projects 
across the country that are leading the way to bring 
underserved communities together and increasing access to clean 
and healthier environments for residents, and providing access 
to public spaces. In my district, the Atlanta BeltLine is 
repurposing abandoned railroad lines to create a 22-mile, 
multi-use trail network, where people can live, work, and play, 
and learn without having to get into a physical car.
    How can we ensure that infrastructure reuse projects are 
included in our Federal grants process?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, it is a great question. And I 
think what we need to do is recognize that good infrastructure 
policy isn't just about adding things where we need them. It is 
also about reimagining what we have already got. When we have a 
piece of infrastructure that has been degraded or neglected, 
like the rails that you are talking about, that can go through 
a rail-to-trail conversion, and change from a liability to an 
asset, we should be doing everything we can to support that, 
because there is a real return on that investment.
    Often, these initiatives are locally led. It is tough for 
us sitting in this building in Washington to be able to decide 
or dictate where those greatest benefits are. But we should be 
empowering local communities with resources that do come from 
the Federal Government. And we would love to work with you on 
ways to make sure that that happens.
    Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you so much. And I will 
yield back the balance of my time as Carter has just come in 
and interrupted my train of thought.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much. Is Representative Pappas 
online?
    Mr. Pappas. I am here, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Carbajal. There you are. We will go to you next, 
Representative Pappas.
    Mr. Pappas. Terrific. Well, thank you very much, Mr. 
Secretary. It is great to be with you. And I think as you can 
see from this hearing today, conversation around infrastructure 
is a marathon and not a sprint, and we appreciate your 
endurance here. It is going to take some more to get things 
over the finish line. But we appreciate your commitment, and 
really appreciate the exchange of ideas here.
    Now, I know a lot of folks have been highlighting local 
issues. One I want to bring up to your attention is a critical 
project in my district, you may be familiar with it, based on 
your time here in New Hampshire: It is the Capitol Corridor 
rail project, which would extend commuter rail from 
Massachusetts to Nashua and Manchester, New Hampshire. When you 
talk to our business community about where they are building 
new headquarters or looking to expand, when you talk to workers 
who are looking to put down roots and start their careers, one 
of the top things they are all looking for is access to public 
transportation, and, particularly, rail access.
    So I think that it is critically important that we look to 
support projects like this. Our State DOT is right now working 
on preliminary design and financial planning for the project. 
They would seek to access New Starts funding, which can be a 
challenging process, certainly for States to navigate.
    One of the concerns that I have around this particular 
program is just the unknowns around commuting patterns after 
COVID-19, whether or not that could add a wrinkle to projects 
being able to move forward under New Starts. I certainly don't 
want to see any temporary changes in patterns that are caused 
by COVID-19 to slow down or stop a project that is going to be 
so crucial to the long-term economic vitality of a region like 
the one that I am from. So I am just wondering if the 
administration has considered whether any changes to New Starts 
would be appropriate or needed to ensure that worthwhile 
projects like this one in particular isn't going to be halted 
because of any uncertainties that have arisen around COVID.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes. We certainly want to make sure 
that there isn't disruption to worthy projects and especially 
those that are so far along in the design and vision process. 
So we are going to make sure through the relevant agencies, the 
FTA in this case, that there is a close pattern of working with 
applicants to see how those impacts might have arisen due to 
COVID, and do everything we can to keep good projects on track.
    Mr. Pappas. Well, terrific.
    And one other thing I wanted to highlight, and I hear it a 
lot from my cities, and towns, and communities that are either 
looking to create local or regional networks of bike and 
pedestrian infrastructure, just the lack of a dedicated funding 
program that can support, not just doing a sidewalk or doing a 
rail trail, but to really build out, some really significant 
networks that could help drive the local economy, increase 
tourism, promote recreation, and get some cars off the roads.
    So I think you are probably aware that half of the American 
trips that people make in their daily life are within a 20-
minute bicycle ride and nearly one-quarter of all trips that 
people make are within a 20-minute walk. So by dedicating some 
additional funding to active transportation, I think we can 
really help create communities with amenities that are walkable 
and bikeable, that have connectivity to one another. And I am 
hoping that you would take a look at our Connecting America's 
Active Transportation Systems Act--it's a $500 million 
dedicated program that Congressman Huffman and I are hoping to 
reintroduce in this Congress, and hoping to incorporate in an 
infrastructure package.
    I am just wondering in the remaining time we have if you 
have any thoughts around active transportation and its role in 
an overall infrastructure package?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you for your vision 
initiative on this, because this is absolutely part of what it 
means to improve transportation in the 21st century. You know, 
this would--the importance of active transportation was, I 
think, poorly understood in the 1950s, the last time we really 
had an opportunity to think this big around infrastructure. But 
this time around, we know a lot of things that were less well 
understood then. That vehicle transportation has a role, but 
that there are congestion mitigation benefits, health benefits, 
environmental benefits, and community benefits to active 
transportation; that under the right conditions, it can be done 
in all kinds of climate, as people in New Hampshire have 
demonstrated, and as countries around the world in very 
northern climates have been able to demonstrate with actions 
that have moved them, frankly, further ahead than where the 
U.S. is right now. So this absolutely has to be part of a 
meaningful vision for the future of surface transportation. And 
I would welcome ways to incorporate that in forthcoming 
legislation.
    Mr. Pappas. Well, thank you for your thoughts. You truly 
have earned your gold star today. And, so, all the best to you 
for a successful term.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank, you Mr. Pappas.
    And this pretty much concludes our hearing today. I want to 
thank Secretary Buttigieg for being with us today. It was a 
long day, but your comments have been very informative and 
helpful. And we look forward to working with you to transform 
our infrastructure system.
    Especially and personally, I am looking forward to your 
visiting my district, California's 24th Congressional District, 
and the central coast in California.
    I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing 
remain open until such time as our witness has provided answers 
to any questions that may be submitted to him in writing.
    I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open 
for 15 days for any additional comments and information 
submitted by Members or the witness to be included in the 
record of today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:11 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                       Submissions for the Record

                              ----------                              

Statement of Jonathan Nez, President, Navajo Nation, Submitted for the 
                    Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
    Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves and members of the 
Committee, thank you for this opportunity to provide the testimony of 
the Navajo Nation. If you have not yet had the opportunity to see our 
beautiful Navajoland, which we call Dinetah, I invite you and your 
families to visit us. The Navajo Nation is the largest American Indian 
tribe in the United States, with 350,000 tribal members and a land mass 
over 27,000 square miles that spans Arizona, New Mexico and Utah.\1\ If 
Navajo was a state, we would rank 41st in size, close behind Indiana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.discovernavajo.com/things-to-know/fact-sheet/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our red rock spires and rainbow deserts are the iconic landscape of 
the American West that you may know from film and television, but much 
of our transportation infrastructure is the landscape of an America the 
federal government has seemingly forgotten. The efforts of the Navajo 
people, or Dine, to get to school, jobs, health care--or really any 
place their lives take them on the Navajo Nation--is compromised daily 
by inequitable funding formulas and federal policies that you can fix. 
We look forward to working with you on an infrastructure bill that 
provides for a more equitable future on the Navajo Nation, and other 
large land based tribes.
                              Introduction
    There are few issues as important to the Navajo Nation as 
transportation infrastructure because roads are the key to everything--
access to health, education, and economic opportunities. Despite the 
determined and valiant efforts of the Navajo Division of Transportation 
(NDOT), and the many successes we have achieved since NDOT first 
partnered directly with the Federal Highway Administration in 2017, the 
Navajo Nation continues to be undermined by a physical infrastructure 
that is among the worst in the United States.
    The Navajo Nation has 14,167 miles of roads \2\--enough miles to 
stretch from our capital in Window Rock, Arizona to Canberra, the 
capital of Australia. 10,000 miles of our roads are unimproved dirt and 
sand roads that become washboards and sand traps in the dry season and 
impassable mud bogs whenever it rains or snows. We are attaching for 
your consideration our new transportation white paper that provides a 
robust narrative about the impacts these problematic roads have upon 
users, and an in-depth analysis of policy solutions that could provide 
transformational change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/fb035e5f-efde-480b-abcf-
2bd23e81b0a9/downloads/
NNTTIP%20Presentation_08-27-18.pdf?ver=1617644619292
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In this testimony, we respectfully provide our response to five 
comments that U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Pete 
Buttigieg made to this Committee on March 25, 2021 \3\ in hopes that 
our lived experience will help inform your approach to the next 
infrastructure bill. Like Congressman Stanton, we too implore this 
Committee to not forget the extraordinary needs of our tribal 
communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
Secretary%20Buttigieg%20Testimony.pdf

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________________________________

``Every Citizen Shares the Need for Reliable Roads''--Secretary Pete 
Buttigieg

_______________________________________________________________________

    We wholeheartedly agree with Secretary Buttigieg that every citizen 
needs reliable roads but some road users deserve more consideration by 
this Committee. Navajo students who are transported in federal school 
busses that must travel over federal roads to federal schools are being 
denied access to education because of federal policies. We thank 
Chairman DeFazio for requesting the report that the Government 
Accountability Office published in May 2017 \4\ that characterized the 
impact Indian school bus routes have upon Indian students, finding that 
on the Navajo Nation students miss more than a dozen days of school per 
year because their roads are impassable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-423.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Meyers v. Bd. of Education,\5\ the seminal 1994 civil rights 
case that was born in the community of Navajo Mountain and is the Brown 
v. Board of Education of Indian Country, the court held that our 
children have the same right to get an education as other students in 
Arizona, Utah and New Mexico under the 14th amendment. Federal agency 
rules, policies and practices continue to deny Navajo students the 
equal treatment promise of Brown to American Indian students. So while 
it is true that every citizen needs reliable roads, our students have a 
constitutional right to get to where they are going when they are 
trying to get to school.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/905/
1544/1741037/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, this is a right that is violated daily when our 
students spend as much time on a school bus as they do in class when 
they get stranded on washed out or otherwise inaccessible roads caused 
by federal disinvestment. Today we receive the same amount of funding 
for our roads as we received in 1995 because, while the national tribal 
transportation fund has steadily increased, our share of it has 
decreased by two thirds. This is no accident but is instead the direct 
result of a cynical tribal road funding formula muscled through 
Congress by entities that have no tribal roads.
    The funding formula that SAFETEA-LU first authorized in 2002, which 
subsequent federal highway bills have reaffirmed, is an inequitable 
process that populates the national tribal road inventory with non-
existent roads miles (i.e. canoe routes and dogsled trails) and 
proposed roads (i.e. ghost roads). It also subsidizes state and county 
roads that are not even located on tribal trust land. The effect has 
been devastating to the Navajo Nation. Prior to SAFETEA-LU, we received 
$79.91 million in Indian Reservation Road funds. Two years later, we 
lost 52.45% of our tribal transportation funding. Our annual 
transportation funding has plateaued for the past decade near $53 
million.
    In recent years, Secretaries of the Bureau of Indian Affairs have 
lauded in their testimonies to Congress that, thanks to SAFETEA-LU and 
its legislative successors, tribes are now investing their tribal 
transportation funds into county and state transportation projects 
(please see BIA Assistant Secretary Michael Black's testimony at the 
2014 Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing).\6\ In 2014 the total 
Tribal Transportation Program (TTP) funds for 566 tribes was just $450 
million but BIA approved $270 million in TTP to be invested in non-BIA 
and non-tribal transportation projects. We do not view this as regional 
progress but as stealing from our students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.doi.gov/ocl/hearings/113/
tribaltransportation_031314

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________________________________

``We face an imperative to create resilient infrastructure and confront 
inequities that have devastated communities.''--Secretary Pete 
Buttigieg

_______________________________________________________________________

    Though many communities throughout your congressional districts 
struggle from systemic inequities, only a few Members of this Committee 
represent tribes within their districts and know first-hand that lack 
of infrastructure resources on large land based Indian reservations is 
qualitatively different from the lack of infrastructure anywhere else 
in this country.
    In 2018, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission provided to Congress the 
Briefing Report called ``Broken Promises: Continuing Federal Funding 
Shortfall for Native Americans'' \7\ that explained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/12-20-Broken-Promises.pdf

          Both the United States and Native Americans have committed to 
        and sustained a special trust relationship, which obligates the 
        federal government to promote the general wellbeing of American 
        Indian tribes in exchange for the surrender and reduction of 
        tribal lands.
          The United States signed 375 treaties, passed laws, and 
        instituted policies that have shaped and defined the special 
        government-to-government relationship between federal and 
        tribal governments. Although Americans Indians have given up 
        their land, the U.S. government has yet to provide adequate 
        support for their infrastructure, self-governance, housing, 
        education, health, and economic development needs.
          Underinvestment in physical infrastructure manifests in 
        broken roads and bridges that impairs the ability of tribal 
        governments to provide essential services and tribal 
        communities to thrive.

    The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the brutal consequence of 
federal neglect of our communities, ravaging Navajo families in large 
part because of federal policies that plagued the Navajo Nation 
infrastructure long before the coronavirus made infrastructure a matter 
of life and death. 40% of Navajo families live without running water or 
sanitation,\8\ 32% of Navajo homes lack electricity,\9\ and 96% of 
Navajo families do not have broadband.\10\ Our patients must travel up 
to 150 miles one way on some of the worst roads in the United States 
just to access basic health care. Last year the coronavirus infection 
rate on the Navajo Nation was over 2,304.41 per 100,000 people, which 
is especially startling when you consider that the coronavirus 
infection rate of New York State was 1,806 cases per 100.000 
people.\11\ Today we still suffer a COVID-19 death rate that is 3.5 
times higher than the U.S. average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ http://uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/
Closing%20the%20Water%20
Access%20Gap%20in%20the%20United%20States_DIGITAL.pdf
    \9\ https://catholicclimatemovement.global/energy-poverty-in-the-
us/
    \10\ https://aipi.clas.asu.edu/sites/default/files/
05011019fccreport_on_broadband_
deployment_in_indian_-
country_pursuant_to_the_repack_airwaves_yielding_better_
access_for_users_of_modern_services_act_of_2018.pdf
    \11\ https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/18/us/navajo-nation-infection-
rate-trnd/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But federal funding neglect is not our only problem. Overbearing 
implementation of Secretarial oversight is also responsible for our 
transportation system still being 85% comprised of earthen roads that 
are in 2021 no different than they were in 1921. The federal trust 
responsibility to which the Broken Promises Report rightfully refers is 
intended to protect tribal resources, lifeways and the culture of 
trustees on federal Indian trust lands. But the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act recognizes the inherent 
right of tribes to govern themselves. The way in which Secretarial 
oversight is currently asserted for Rights of Way and pre-construction 
clearances on the Navajo Nation is a structural inequity that deprives 
us of the same decisionmaking authority that the federal government 
extends to states and territories. As a result, our transportation 
system is caught within duplicative tangles of red tape that drive up 
project costs and protract project schedules by degrees of years, not 
weeks or months.
    We have the capacity to administer transportation programs, fulfill 
our self-governance agreement with the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 
and operate like any state department of transportation. The Navajo 
Nation Environmental Protection Agency (NNEPA) is our regulatory agency 
charged with protection of human health and the environment. Since the 
1990s, NNEPA departments and programs have worked diligently to seek 
Treatment As a State status from the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency under the following:
      Public Water Systems Supervision Program for Safe 
Drinking Water Act, August 1991
      Section 106 Clean Water Act, June 1993
      Safe Drinking Water Act by Underground Injection Control, 
September 1994
      Section 319 Clean Water Act, October 1999
      Public Water System Supervision Program, December 2000
      Title V Permitting for Clean Air Act, October 2004
      Sub Section 303/401 for Clean Water Act, January 2006
      Class II Primacy, Safe Drinking Water Act by Underground 
Injection Control, October, 2008
      Approval for development of Uranium Policy Commission, 
2015

    Today NNEPA continues to work even harder to get Treatment As a 
State for more programs, administer those programs for which NNEPA has 
been delegated federal credentials, and develop our own Navajo Nation 
environmental laws to further protect our own natural resources. 
Secretarial oversight may be appropriate for a 50 member village, or a 
direct service tribe that lacks the capacity to govern itself. However, 
secretarial authority should be calibrated to honor not hinder tribal 
sovereignty, to support not undermine the Navajo Nation and dozens of 
other tribes who have similarly spent the last 50 years developing 
systems of self-governance to work toward self-sufficiency.
_______________________________________________________________________

``Now is the time to finally address major inequities . . . decades of 
disinvestment.''--Secretary Pete Buttigieg

_______________________________________________________________________

    Seventeen years before ``Broken Promises,'' the U.S. Civil Rights 
Commission sent to Congress its first report on federal neglect in 
Indian Country. That report is called ``A Quiet Crisis'' \12\ and it 
similarly outlined for Members the inequitable consequence of decades 
of disinvestment in Indian Country, saying:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/na0703/na0204.pdf

        ``(T)here persists a large deficit in funding Native American 
        programs that needs to be paid to eliminate the backlog of 
        unmet Native American needs, an essential predicate to raising 
        their standards of living to that of other Americans. Native 
        Americans living on tribal lands do not have access to the same 
        services and programs available to other Americans, even though 
        the government has a binding trust obligation to provide 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        them.''

    Chief among the recommendations that ``A Quiet Crisis'' made was 
increased funding for such essential infrastructure as roads, which are 
predicates to providing other needs like housing, health care and 
education. The urgency of the need for federal investment in tribal 
roads was especially emphasized for large land based tribes, yet since 
``A Quiet Crisis'' was sent to Congress, funding levels for the Navajo 
transportation system have become so low that it is only possible to 
construct 16 miles of new pavement per year. In the past two decades, 
federal disinvestment in roads and bridges on the Navajo Nation has 
mostly worsened:
      Deferred Road Pavement Needs: The Navajo Nation Long 
Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) has identified a total of $1.4 billion 
in funding needs to address the current pavement deficiencies of the 
Navajo Nation.
      Other Deferred Road Needs: Our LRTP also identifies an 
additional $6.5 billion for upgrades to the current roadway system, 
which includes earth, gravel, and paved roads.
      Deferred Bridge Needs: There are 179 bridges that 
currently present transportation challenges to the Navajo Nation. We 
need $30 million to repair or reconstruct 10 of our most structurally 
deficient bridges some of which comprise components of major school bus 
routes.

    Unfortunately, MAP-21 eliminated the stand alone national tribal 
bridge program that once provided $14 million per year. Today 574 
tribes must now compete for annual bridge grants that are little more 
than skinny slices from the crumb pie that is the 4% tribal bridge set 
aside from annual Tribal Transportation Program funds.

_______________________________________________________________________

``Now is the time to improve the air we breathe''--Secretary Pete 
Buttigieg

_______________________________________________________________________

    Dirt roads may not typically come to mind during discussions about 
clean air but unpaved road dust is a big source of particulate matter 
on the Navajo Nation. Our 9,400 miles of earthen roads have public 
health consequences. A 2005 Navajo Nation Emissions Inventory found 
that road dust is a key source of Particulate Matter 10 and Particulate 
Matter 2.5,\13\ both of which have resulted in the Navajo Nation 
sharing the highest rates for asthma hospitalizations among all Indian 
Health Service Regions. There is a cure for this that should be easy 
but the Bureau of Indian Affairs makes very difficult: gravel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6207133/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The problem is two-fold:
    1.  Definition of ``Maintenance'': The BIA defines ``maintenance'' 
so narrowly that the agency considers graveling a dirt road to be 
``construction'' making blading the only option, even though blading 
dirt roads provides merely temporary benefit but permanently channels 
the road below its surrounding surface, thus creating gully washes and 
sometimes even exposing archaeological properties.
    2.  National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): The BIA insists that 
adding gravel to an existing previously non graveled road, or 
installing culverts within an already disturbed area, triggers the full 
panoply of the NEPA process, thus making the application of gravel to 
dirt roads prohibitive on the Navajo Nation if using BIA Tribal 
Priority Allocation (TPA) funds for these purposes.
_______________________________________________________________________

``Now is the time to redouble our commitment to transportation 
reliability and safety and ensure that families will no longer have to 
mourn tragic deaths that could have been prevented.''--Secretary Pete 
Buttigieg

_______________________________________________________________________

    The Navajo Nation is making every effort to provide safe travels on 
our roadways to reduce fatal motor vehicle injuries that are a 
significant public health problem for the Dine people, accounting for 
10.6% of all deaths Our fatality vehicular accident rate is at least 
four times that of the rest of the country: 44.80/100,000 on the Navajo 
Nation compared to 11.9/100,000 in the rest of the United States.\14\ 
As bad as our documented vehicular injury and fatality rates are, in 
reality they are likely far worse due to underreporting. The Navajo 
Nation's tri-state jurisdiction makes tracking and reporting crash data 
a very difficult challenge, undermining our ability to adequately 
access the federal funding we need to mitigate crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ https://www.nec.navajo-nsn.gov/Portals/0/Reports/
Navajo%20Fatal%20Car%20Crashes%20
Report%202005-2014_opt.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nevertheless, we are grateful that in January 2021 we were awarded 
$592,740 in FY 2020 Tribal Transportation Program Safety Funds to 
assess and improve three roads that have experienced some of the 
highest number of fatal and serious injury crashes within the Navajo 
Nation. Our 2018 Strategic Highway Safety Plan found that overturn/
rollover vehicles and head-on collisions were largely caused by lane 
departures that could be avoided with structural improvements. Our 
intention for this project is to achieve crash reductions of at least 
25% by use of chevron warning signs, 35% by use of fluorescent curve 
signs, and 37.7% by use of edge line pavement markings.
    There is an enormous need at hundreds of other locations on the 
Navajo Nation for similar roadway safety improvements, but there is 
profound competition for limited Tribal Transportation Program funds 
that are woefully funded compared to true need. For example, in 2014 
the Federal Highway Administration could only provide $8.5 million in 
grants for 94 tribal safety projects when 126 tribes applied for a 
requesting total of $27.1 million in assistance. We agree with 
Secretary Buttigieg that now is the time to redouble our commitment to 
transportation safety, and we hope Congress will redouble its 
investment in the Tribal Transportation Program to help us reduce the 
transportation safety disparities that kill American Indians at far 
higher rates than other Americans.

_______________________________________________________________________

``Now is the time to create millions of good jobs--for American 
workers, to help communities and businesses--big and small, rural and 
urban--to compete and win in the global economy.''--Secretary Pete 
Buttigieg

_______________________________________________________________________

    We need jobs here on the Navajo Nation, now more than ever. The 
shuttering of the fossil fuel industry on and around our tribal lands 
has already cost 2,200 Dine workers well-paying jobs. Over the next few 
years we anticipate the closure of five more coal fire plants. Our own 
children often have no choice but to move away in search of 
opportunities that are not available here at home on Dinetah.
    To reduce persistent poverty and dependency within our borders, we 
need the federal government to help our efforts to cut red tape in 
order to improve our transportation system. Federal policies that have 
long stymied development on the Navajo Nation--separate clearance 
approvals by multiple federal agencies but for the same intent, for 
example--continue to repel private investors from doing business here 
because their first consideration is the availability of adequate 
infrastructure needed to support their enterprise.
    The Navajo Nation is rising to the occasion of this difficult 
moment by looking at all opportunities to diversify our economy, 
including new rail. A railroad spur from the I-40 BNSF railway corridor 
to San Juan County is essential to stimulate economic development and 
job creation in our region and install vitally needed infrastructure 
here on the Navajo Nation. We are grateful that in January 2021 USDOT 
awarded our multi-jurisdictional coalition a $2 million ``Better 
Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development'' (BUILD) grant for 
planning a capital railroad project that is estimated to cost about 
$200 million, as well as a transloading facility on the Navajo Nation 
that is estimated to cost $350 million.
    Tourism is also a big component of the Navajo Nation Comprehensive 
Economic Development Plan and the growth of that industry here on 
Dinetah will require us to be able to make the road improvements 
necessary to build out a tourism corridor that we call the Navajo Grand 
Circle. Too many tourism operators currently launch trips from Las 
Vegas, Nevada that orbit the Navajo Nation but do not actually land 
here. The Navajo Grand Circle will require roads that can provide safe 
passage for tourists from point to point: from Las Vegas to Page to 
Monument Valley to Shiprock to Crown Point to Hopi to Tuba City to the 
Grand Canyon then back to Las Vegas. We hope to see you and your 
families and friends on the Navajo Grand Circle some day.
      Navajo Nation's Top Transportation Priorities for the Next 
                          Infrastructure Bill
Promote tribal sovereignty by retroceding Secretarial approval over 
        tribes who have demonstrated their own capacity for federal 
        regulatory compliance.
    We need the Secretary of Transportation and Secretary of Interior 
to retrocede their authority over tribal roads in cases where tribal 
governments, like the Navajo Nation, have already assumed treatment as 
a state from U.S. EPA.
Protect the integrity of tribal road funds so that they do not 
        subsidize non-tribal roads.
    Congress should redefine, for the purpose of the National Tribal 
Transportation Facility Inventory (NTTFI), the definition of ``roads'' 
to access routes for vehicular ground surface traffic (explicitly 
excluding walking paths, dog mush routes and canoe trails; Congress 
should require all proposed roads included within NTTFI to be supported 
by data, both going forward and retroactively; and Congress should 
prohibit Tribal Transportation Program funds from being invested in 
non-BIA or non-tribal road projects.
Harmonize Agency Guidance with Law to make Navajo roads safe.
    Congress should authorize a workable definition for maintenance for 
earthen roads so that the BIA's definition is consistent with other 
federal lands agencies and permits the application of gravel and other 
safety activities within existing road perimeters.
Provide separate tribal bridge funding that does not compete with road 
        funding.
    Congress should reauthorize the tribal bridge program at a level 
that exceeds its prior authorization of $14 million annually.
                               Conclusion
    The roads on Dinetah have carried precious cargo, commerce and 
correspondence across the Navajo Nation for generations. They even once 
carried the uranium that the United States said was needed to protect 
all of our freedoms. But today we need these roads need to carry the 
dreams of the Navajo Nation For that we need federal policies that 
support the emergence of a Navajo road transportation system built for 
the 21st century. Thank you for allowing us to share with you our 
vision for what those policies should like.

                                 
  Statement of Nicholas Guida, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, 
Tamarack Aerospace Group Corporation, Submitted for the Record by Hon. 
                         Sam Graves of Missouri
    Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for accepting my testimony to the committee on 
``The Administration's Priorities for Transportation Infrastructure.'' 
I am Nick Guida and I'm the founder and CEO of Tamarack Aerospace Group 
Corporation.
    Climate change is of course one of the most significant challenges 
currently facing human civilization. Despite aviation being a 
relatively small contributor of overall global carbon dioxide emissions 
at 2-3%, aviation's statistical position is often cited in the media 
and that trend will no doubt continue as aviation continues to grow. 
(Graver, Zhang, & Rutherford, 2019). As a result, the environmental 
impact of flying is consistently breaking into the consciousness of 
passengers and the public alike, influencing their perception of 
aviation.
    Aviation must leverage all legacy and especially new technologies 
to constantly strengthen a perception that the industry proactively 
supports sustainability and science that will mitigate the negative 
outcomes of climate change.
    America and the world need to aggressively use all available 
current technologies to reduce the metastasizing carbon footprint and 
not ignore any pending technologies--including pending solutions like 
bio-fuels, electric and hydrogen propulsion--as they become commonly 
available over time. America needs to open its eyes to all current 
possibilities, especially those that are not widely known but can be 
so-called game-changers, game-changers that also make good business 
sense.
    One such new, and game-changing technology available right now and 
gaining notice by the aviation industry and regulators, is Active 
WingletsTM, developed by Tamarack Aerospace Group. Tamarack 
is based in Sandpoint, Idaho--we are a growing American company built 
on invention.
    Active Winglets look very much like the curved-upward passive 
winglets you see on the ends of many commercial aircraft wings, except 
Active Winglets have an extension and an autonomous sensing system that 
in a fraction of a second mechanically adjusts the wing tips to any 
amount of turbulence and, in so doing, allows for the most efficient, 
fuel-saving and flight smoothing capabilities available today.
    Patented Active Winglet innovation delivers a CO2 and fuel burn 
reduction of up to 33% as compared to an approximate 4% fuel savings 
from different types of traditional winglets seen on many current 
commercial, business and military aircraft. Active Winglets increase 
the number of fuel efficient and safer non-stop flights, and reduce the 
amount of maintenance needed for all aircraft. Active Winglet 
technology stands out in many ways amongst other sustainability 
initiatives as a sustainability supporting immediate solution for 
reducing aviation's carbon footprint to meet industry goals (Forbes 
Magazine, Tamarack Aerospace Group, 2020 and former aeronautical 
professor and commercial pilot, NASA astronaut Byron Lichtenberg, 2021, 
to cite just a few of the multiple sources).
    There are several steps that aircraft operators can put in place to 
significantly reduce emissions. The science and market demands are 
dictating that we need to act now. Technology such as Sustainable 
Aviation Fuels are absolutely viable solutions but face significant 
scalability obstacles, carbon sequestration and offsetting would be 
required on a vast scale to have a significant impact and the 
introduction of newer, more fuel-efficient aircraft which emit less 
CO2, will not be sufficient on its own to offset the growth in the 
number of air transport movements.
    Active Winglets are a proven technology that has been installed on 
more than one-hundred-and-twenty Cessna Jets, has been certified by the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and European Union Aviation 
Safety Agency (EASA), and can be retrofitted onto several current 
aircraft variants, including larger single-aisle commercial, cargo and 
military aircraft . . . even drones. Active Winglets are cost-effective 
and can be rapidly retrofitted to the existing fleet as well as future 
designs to improve safety, mitigate turbulence, reduce noise and other 
pollution associated with aviation and reduce the downtime and need for 
aircraft maintenance.
    The Active Winglet technology is economically viable, paying the 
investment for the modification back to the aircraft operator in a 
short period and can have a significant benefit for the existing as 
well as future fleets of aircraft. Of course, if business and 
government can't make an economic argument for adopting specific 
actions, those actions will naturally fail. Conservative estimates on 
narrow bodied and specific military aircraft, demonstrate that 
Tamarack's Active Winglets can reduce fuel burn by 14-20%, while there 
is proven fuel savings for many business airframes of up to 33%, 
providing significant cost savings and having a meaningful impact now 
on aviation's carbon crisis.
    A case study conducted by Tamarack estimates, for instance, that if 
Active Winglets were to be fitted onto the commercial jet narrow-bodied 
fleet (Airbus A320 / Boeing 737 variants) alone, 1.6 billion tons of 
CO2 would be saved by 2040, reducing the emissions gap by approximately 
20%. Tamarack's technology offers a greater reduction in fuel burn and 
carbon emissions for existing aircraft than any other retrofittable 
solution available at present and certainly will make a demonstrable 
fuel savings and carbon footprint reduction as part of a new aircraft 
build.
    More context about winglet technology. Winglets are small aerofoils 
applied vertically to the wing tips and are a positive addition to 
aircraft as they reduce drag and increase efficiency. They work by 
reducing the aerodynamic drag associated with vortices. Vortices form 
due to the pressure differentiation between the low-pressure upper wing 
surface and the high-pressure lower wing surface. At the wing tip, air 
is free to move from the regions of high pressure to the regions of low 
pressure forming a circular movement of air which trails from the wing 
tip (Anderson, 2017). The creation of vortices causes a redistribution 
of the surface pressure over the wing termed induced drag (Anderson, 
Introduction to Flight, 2016). The advantages of Active Winglets are 
significant and address the vortices and fuel usage challenges more 
than other winglet technologies; they are retrofittable and therefore 
can improve today's aircraft, as well as those coming off the 
production line; they are largely cost effective to implement; and are 
a `win, win' as they pay back economically and environmentally.
    The Active Winglet uses the combination of a wing extension to 
significantly increase aspect ratio with the most optimal winglet to 
reduce induced drag. Traditionally, the most optimal winglet design is 
associated with more structural reinforcement, but the Active Winglet 
doesn't need the structural reinforcement that common passive winglets 
do.
    Active Winglets reap maximum fuel efficiency benefits without 
subtracting the inefficiencies that occur due to additional structural 
requirements. This is achieved using load alleviation at the wing tip.
    Additionally, Active Winglet modified aircraft need shorter runways 
for landing and takeoff and get higher faster than aircraft without the 
modification. For instance, it can take a Cessna Jet with Active 
Winglets to reach 41,000 feet in less than 30 minutes, while a similar 
unmodified business jet will have to reach higher altitudes after 
climbing in steps and may never reach 41,000 feet at all, depending on 
flight conditions and the time of the trip (AOPA reporting Active 
Winglet flight, 2021). As mentioned, once an aircraft gets to higher 
altitudes faster, the carbon footprint is greatly reduced.
    Tamarack commends the committee on its backing of current U.S. 
government programs to encourage innovation in aviation and we hope 
that kind of assistance increases. This committee, for instance, is 
well aware of government grants for emissions innovative companies. For 
example, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Continuous Lower 
Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) program has already contributed 
$225 million through phases I and II of CLEEN, and the industry has 
contributed $388 million. The 2020 grants under CLEEN III are to be 
issued soon (FAA, 2020). Tamarack will be applying for the next tranche 
of grants in order to go through the certification process for 
additional airframes. Meanwhile, we hope the committee will continue to 
encourage all technologies and efforts to embrace business cases for 
climate solutions.
    Part of the reason that aviation is gaining so much attention 
relative to reducing the carbon footprint is an immediate need, like so 
many other industries, to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels in the 
face of expected continued rapid growth (UNFCCC, 2014). Active Winglets 
and other technologies available now or soon warrant additional focus 
by regulators and the entire aviation community.
    The coronavirus pandemic has shrunk the world fleet because of 
airlines going out of business and older, less efficient aircraft being 
retired early. From 2020 onwards, this will unquestionably deliver 
reduced CO2 emissions lower than previously projected. However, this is 
not the solution to aviation's carbon emission challenges. Although 
passenger numbers dropped by 2690 million (60%) in 2020 compared to 
2019, passenger numbers are predicted to recover to 2019 levels within 
the next 3-5 years (ICAO, 2021). Furthermore, in 2020 compared to 2019, 
approximately USD $370 billion of gross passenger operating revenues of 
airlines were lost (ICAO, 2021). This unprecedented event could present 
a major opportunity for operators to reset their thinking on emissions 
targets and implement sustainable practices in every aspect of their 
new, reshaped organizations.
    Aircraft are reliant on fossil fuels and with no clear path or 
timeframe to a zero-emission alternative, ICAO predicts a large gap in 
the emissions targets set for the period of 2020 to 2040. There are 
several steps that aircraft operators can put in place to significantly 
reduce emissions. The science and market demands are dictating that we 
need to act now. Technology such as Sustainable Aviation Fuels are 
absolutely viable solutions but face significant scalability obstacles, 
carbon sequestration and offsetting would be required on a vast scale 
to have a significant impact and the introduction of newer, more fuel-
efficient aircraft which emit less CO2, will not be sufficient on its 
own to offset the growth in the number of air transport movements.
    Active Winglet technology is economically viable, paying the 
investment back in a short period and can have a significant benefit 
for the existing as well as future fleets of aircraft. Of course, if 
business and government can't make an economic argument for adopting 
specific actions, those actions will naturally fail. Conservative 
estimates on narrow bodied aircraft, demonstrate that Tamarack's Active 
Winglets can reduce fuel burn by 14-20%, providing significant cost 
savings and having a meaningful impact on aviation's carbon crisis.
    As availability of Sustainable Aviation Fuels increases and 
technology advances, the aviation sector will see substantial 
reductions in carbon emissions until zero emissions aircraft can be 
developed. However, where a near-term solution is needed, fitting 
Active Winglets would be a significant step forward for operators 
looking to obtain carbon neutral operations, particularly when combined 
with a host of other sustainable initiatives. Tamarack hopes this 
committee considers all emission reducing options including Active 
Winglet technology that stands out as an exciting prospect which can 
reduce the emissions gap by over 1.6 billion tons (-20%), it is 
available now and is scalable.
    As mentioned, Tamarack is growing. We have additional primary 
service and installation centers in South Carolina and England and 
other support facilities in more than twenty other locations across the 
United States and world-wide. We have been growing our facilities, 
staff, and customer base, despite the pandemic because our current and 
prospective customers want the innovative capabilities only Tamarack 
Active Winglets can provide to business, commercial and military 
aviation.
    Tamarack is currently working with U.S. and international aviation 
regulators, along with aviation associations like NBAA and GAMA, noted 
academia representatives and getting constant feedback from existing 
and future customers, including the U.S. military. We are confident 
that U.S. innovation tempered by prudent government regulation will 
meet or possibly exceed carbon footprint reduction goals specifically 
outlined for the aviation industry. Those ambitious goals will only be 
achieved through cooperation and teamwork involving all stakeholders 
and by climbing the very steep education curve that recognizes and 
adopts the most pragmatic innovations addressing our climate crisis.
    Tamarack thinks of itself as a good corporate citizen for America 
and also the world and believes news about its sustainability-
supporting technology, and other avenues for aviation to reduce carbon 
emissions, will be recognized by this committee as a current way to 
quickly provide a solution to help the growing aviation industry reach 
its carbon footprint reducing goals.
    Tamarack looks forward to providing details and science-based 
information alluded to in these comments and will eagerly cooperate 
with this committee to embrace solutions that bolster the reputation of 
aviation as we achieve the climate-saving goals we all want.

                                 
Statement of Amy Cohen, Cofounder, Families for Safe Streets, Submitted 
                 for the Record by Hon. John Garamendi
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement for the hearing 
with USDOT Commissioner Pete Buttigieg. Over 40,000 Americans die on 
our roadways every year. You will likely hear a lot about the 
statistics and the numbers. But today, I want to remind each and every 
one of you, behind every number, there is a life, a devastated family, 
and a heartbroken community.
    This crisis demands bold action. Families for Safe Streets has 
joined with the Road to Zero Coalition, the Vision Zero Network, Toward 
Zero Deaths and hundreds of other organizations urging President Biden 
and his administration to change that by making a public pledge to 
achieve zero traffic deaths by 2050. Today, I urge you to join with us 
and include a commitment to #ZeroTrafficDeaths in the infrastructure 
plan.
    It is 2,725 days since my 12-year-old son Sammy was struck and 
killed by a speeding driver in front of our home in Brooklyn, New York. 
2,725 painful days since I last kissed him goodbye, touched his face, 
smelled his unique Sammy smell, saw him chatting with his sister, made 
him breakfast, and gave him a farewell hug.
    Every parent thinks their child is special, but Sammy really was 
amazing. He was curious about the world, loved to ask questions, 
carefully pondered the answers, and then seemed to always have an 
unquenchable desire to know more. He was a budding renaissance man and 
excelled in sports with fierce determination. He played soccer, 
baseball and hockey. Just weeks before he died, he rode his bike with 
my husband Gary in the NYC century ride, and at 12 years of age, was 
the youngest one to complete the 100-mile ride.
    Gary called me from a rest break at the 85-mile marker. He said 
that Sammy was exhausted so they'd be stopping early and heading home. 
But somehow, Sammy mustered the strength to get back on his bike and 
ride for the final, most hilly portion of the course.
    I thought my love was so strong that I could create an invisible 
shield around my children. Sammy was smart, street savvy and did not 
take risks. We lived in a safe, residential neighborhood where children 
played on the side streets, though I never allowed mine to do so. But 
every year, thousands of parents like me learn that their shield is 
fallible. That our roadways are deadly.
    My husband said to me days after Sammy died, if only we were living 
in London, Sammy would still be alive. We had just gone there on 
vacation two months earlier. London had just adopted Vision Zero, 
lowered their speed limit and had signs posted everywhere that 20 is 
Plenty.
    On our final day in London, Gary took Sammy to a professional 
soccer game and a soccer stadium tour. Sammy said it was the happiest 
day of his life. I never imagined he would have so few days to live 
after that.
    After he died, I was so full of pain and it had to go somewhere or 
it would consume me. So I started speaking out. Soon, I joined with 
others and helped form Families for Safe Streets. Our mission is to 
confront the preventable epidemic of traffic violence.
    We chose the word ``confront'' and epidemic very intentionally 
because, just like with COVID-19, traffic crashes are preventable and 
we have the ``vaccine''. But somehow, we still call them accidents--as 
if there is nothing we can do. We share our stories to push back on 
this complacency. We started with a few dozen members in New York City 
and now have a dozen chapters across the country with more in 
formation. We share our tears and we are making waves, from demanding 
action at vigils to holding lobby days at our city halls and capitals. 
We seek not just to raise awareness because we will never be able to 
``educate'' our way out of this problem. We demand legislative and 
policy change to redesign our streets, lower speed limits, use existing 
technology such as automated enforcement and vehicle safety features. 
We advocate to get dangerous drivers off the road, support crash 
victims and so much more.
    We start with a single premise--``zero'' is possible and it is the 
only morally acceptable goal. No loss of life in a preventable crash is 
justifiable.
    The Biden administration inherits a catastrophe that uniquely 
bedevils the United States among high-income countries. U.S. traffic 
fatalities rose 11.5% from 2010 to 2018 while the European Union 
recorded a drop of 23%. Europeans treat road deaths as preventable.
    The surge in traffic violence has continued even as many Americans 
work and learn at home because of the pandemic. In 2020, the motor-
vehicle fatality rate spiked 24% on a miles-driven basis compared to 
the year prior, it marked the sixth consecutive month of a distressing 
new pattern: Americans are driving less but dying at higher rates.
    The good news is there is so much we can do. Canada, another 
country with a lot of open road, has achieved a traffic mortality rate 
of less than half of that in the United States, thanks to smart street 
design and graduated licensing. Norway achieved a more than four-fold 
decline in fatalities since 1985 and reached zero traffic deaths in 
Oslo in 2019 by lowering speeds and providing safe space for people 
walking and biking. Similar strategies in Bogota, Colombia, are 
credited with a 27% reduction in traffic fatalities over three years.
    We recognize that the President and Congress face many challenges 
during this difficult time in our country and that the new 
administration's immediate focus is on the COVID-19 pandemic, which has 
caused such harm and suffering. But the pandemic has also reminded us 
how precious life is. While the focus on COVID-19 is desperately 
needed, we cannot also overlook its impact on our roads.
    Stepping up leadership to address the health crisis of 40,000 
preventable traffic deaths each year can reinforce the nation's path 
forward to invest in our infrastructure and Build Back Better.
    There is so much we can do to make our streets safe for all people. 
The U.S. can reach the goal of zero traffic deaths, saving lives and 
improving more affordable access to everyday needs. But to do so, we 
need to make a commitment as a nation, to prioritize safety using the 
most effective and equitable strategies. A federal commitment to 
eliminate fatalities would require that the U.S. develop a plan and 
commit funding and policy imperative to:
      Double down on what works through proven, evidence-based 
strategies that support equity
      Advance life-saving technology in vehicles and 
infrastructure
      Prioritize safety by adopting a Safe Systems Approach 
that ties federal funding to saving lives and sets national road safety 
mandates
      Support crash victims, like victims of other crimes, even 
when drivers are not criminally charged

    For more details on how we can eliminate traffic deaths on our 
roadways, see the Road to Zero Report.
    Families like ours know only too well that there is far too much at 
stake not to act now. Please, on behalf of my son Sammy and all of our 
members who mourn lives lost or are forever changed, I hope that the 
infrastructure plan will include a commitment to #ZeroTrafficDeaths.
                               __________
Families for Safe Streets (FSS) confronts the epidemic of traffic 
violence by advocating for life-saving changes and providing support to 
those who have been impacted by crashes. Comprised of individuals who 
have been injured or lost loved ones, FSS was founded in 2014 in New 
York City and is growing as a national movement with chapters across 
the country.
                                Appendix

                              ----------                              


Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary 
          of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

    Question 1. After receiving PPP loans last year, small business 
contractors that qualified for loan forgiveness are facing uncertainty. 
FHWA recently issued guidance about whether, and the terms under which, 
contractors may be required to credit back some of the assistance. We 
appreciate the Department's work to date to help clarify this issue and 
provide certainty.
    Mr. Secretary, will you continue to work with members of the 
engineering community, state Departments of Transportation, and other 
relevant stakeholders to ensure consistent implementation of this 
guidance?
    Answer. Yes, I commit to working with Congress, members of the 
engineering community, State departments of transportation (DOT), and 
other relevant stakeholders to ensure consistent implementation of 
FHWA's ``Treatment of Paycheck Protection Program Funds for 
Architectural and Engineering Consultants Guidance'' and applicable 
governmentwide requirements. FHWA actively participates in regular 
meetings with representatives of State DOTs, the American Council of 
Engineering Companies, and other members of the engineering community 
to address questions or concerns on Federal guidance to ensure 
consistent implementation.

  Questions from Hon. Sam Graves to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of 
           Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

    Question 1. During the hearing and in several press reports, you 
emphasized a very broad transportation agenda for the Administration. 
Will added capacity to the existing federal-aid highway system play a 
role in the Administration's vision of the future of transportation? 
Electric vehicles must drive our Nation's roads, highways, and 
interstates just as combustion engine cars, so are the needs for 
expanded capacity a part of the vision?
    Answer. DOT does not impose any one-size-fits-all solutions to 
solving the transportation challenges facing our states and 
communities. We will continue to support state transportation 
departments as they undertake this work, and we recognize and value the 
role of the states in deciding how to prioritize the use of formula 
dollars. The nation faces a trillion-dollar backlog of needed repairs 
and we have fallen to 13th in the world in infrastructure. The 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law investments will help modernize bridges, 
highways, roads, and main streets that are in most critical need of 
repair, with a focus on making our nation's roads safer, making our 
transportation systems cleaner, more accessible, and more resilient to 
climate impacts, creating jobs and economic growth, and enabling all 
Americans to share in the benefits.

    Question 2. President Biden has made it a priority to accelerate 
the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). Last Congress, there were 
several hearings held in both Chambers with witnesses underscoring how 
dependent we are on China for critical rare earth minerals processing 
needed for producing EV batteries.
    a.  California Governor Newsom has set a goal of halting the sale 
of internal combustion engine vehicles in California by 2035. Does the 
Administration support the goal of banning the sale of traditional 
vehicles?
    Answer. We support working with the American auto industry and 
ensuring that U.S. industries lead the world in our clean energy 
future. We are already seeing many automakers promoting exciting new 
zero emission vehicles with longer ranges, excellent performance, and 
all-wheel drive. Working with industry means using whatever tools we 
have at our disposal to support clean transportation with high quality 
American jobs, whether that is strengthening our fuel economy 
standards, delivering on the President's vision for a network of 
500,000 electric vehicle chargers by 2030, expanding domestic 
production of critical materials, or supporting American innovation. We 
are also committed to ensuring that we deliver the benefits of a clean 
transportation fleet to all communities, especially those that have 
borne a disproportionate burden of exposure to air pollution from cars 
and trucks. As we move to a zero-emission fleet, we need to ensure that 
our auto workers are not left behind. We need to be a leader in the 
domestic manufacturing of auto parts, including batteries and charging 
equipment, in the United States and provide the tools to make sure our 
disadvantaged and minority owned businesses and auto workers benefit 
from the transition to electrification.

    b.  Do you believe that the term zero emission vehicle must include 
full life-cycle analysis and not just an examination of vehicle's 
tailpipe emissions?
    Answer. The Administration has already begun transitioning the 
Federal fleet to zero-emission vehicles and fully supports the 
increased use of zero-emission vehicles nationwide. Vehicle life-cycle 
emissions analysis is a critical component to reaching our 2030 
emission reduction targets and better understanding the full scope of 
carbon emissions in our transportation sector. To yield further 
improvements in life-cycle emissions, we are committed to the 
development of green materials and renewable energy technology.

    c.  Does it concern you that places like San Francisco, CA; 
Seattle, WA; and the Washington, D.C. metro area are some of the only 
places where average salaries are high enough to afford the average 
priced electric vehicle?
    Answer. The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to ensuring 
that Americans in all communities benefit from the clean energy 
transition, especially those in rural areas--who drive more--and those 
that have borne a disproportionate burden of exposure to air pollution 
from vehicles.
    EVs have been shown to be cheaper to run and maintain than 
traditional internal combustion engine vehicles. For example, AAA has 
calculated to travel 15,000 miles, electricity for a compact EV cost 
$1,255 less than gasoline, and annual maintenance for an EV costs an 
average of $330 less. Today, compact, American-made EVs start at around 
$26,000, and electric pickups start at a little over $41,000. Of 
course, this may still be out of reach for some Americans, but 
developments in battery and charging technology, the auto industry's 
release of a wider range of increasingly affordable EVs, and additional 
support from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for the EV domestic 
supply chain are expected to contribute to a decrease in the upfront 
purchase costs of EVs. The Administration has also advocated for tax 
incentives that would further reduce the upfront cost of EVs.
    Because EVs are more than just cars, the Administration will 
implement the $5 billion in funding in the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law (BIL) to replace diesel transit vehicles and electrify our yellow 
school bus fleet. These investments will set us on a path to 100 
percent clean buses, while ensuring that the American workforce is 
trained to operate and maintain this 21st century infrastructure.

    d.  As Secretary of Transportation, how are you balancing 
affordability and safety to make sure that my constituents are not 
compelled to buy expensive cars that may not meet their needs?
    Answer. We can and must have both safety and affordability. Studies 
are finding that electric vehicles are safe and have held up well in 
crash-worthiness tests in comparison to gasoline-powered vehicles. 
Battery technology has continued to improve, both in terms of increased 
travel ranges and safety. Further, safety testing and standards apply 
to electric vehicles just as they apply to vehicles with internal 
combustion engines. Additionally, the auto industry is demonstrating 
its commitment to a voluntary shift to EV manufacturing and is in the 
process of rolling out new hybrid and EV models ranging from sub-
compacts to pick-up trucks that are aimed at meeting a wide variety of 
financial, performance, and aesthetic needs.

    e.  Given the issues surrounding the solvency within the Highway 
Trust Fund (HTF) and that EV drivers use our bridges and roads while 
not paying taxes to support the infrastructure as those who pay federal 
and state gas taxes at the pump, do you support a policy for electric 
vehicles to pay their fair share into the HTF? Especially given that 
EVs weigh more than their internal combustion engine equivalent.
    Answer. We need to find a path towards a more sustainable, 
resilient transportation system--and the funding to make that possible. 
I look forward to working with the Committee and the Congress to 
address our long-standing Highway Trust Fund challenges.

    Question 3. Small electric drones are dramatically improving the 
safety, efficiency and carbon footprint of infrastructure repair and 
construction projects. States are using small, US-made drones to 
inspect bridges with 3-D imaging technology; utilities are using drones 
to inspect power lines to find flaws before they start fires; and roads 
are being built with surveys prepared by drones. How does the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) intend to maximize the benefits of 
drones to improve our country's infrastructure by:
    a.  Providing opportunities for state and local government, as well 
as regulated utilities, to use federal funds to purchase or use drone 
technology to improve U.S. infrastructure?
    Answer. The Department's focus is enabling activities and benefits 
from drones by safely and securely integrating unmanned aircraft 
systems (UAS) into the Nation's airspace. When it comes to UAS, safety 
is not just about the aircraft itself, but how that aircraft can safely 
integrate into communities. A wide range of industries are already 
starting to see benefits from use of UAS--from agriculture to 
construction to infrastructure inspection.

    b.  Allowing drones to be operated persistently at very low-
altitudes beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) to conduct safe and 
efficient infrastructure inspections?
    Answer. The Department works closely with stakeholders to use 
drones in their transportation and infrastructure programs. For 
example, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is working on 
policies and oversight mechanisms to safely enable BVLOS. The FAA's 
BEYOND Program collaborates with eight State, Local and Tribal 
governments to focus on enabling BVLOS operations that are repeatable, 
scalable, and economically viable across rural, suburban and urban 
environments.
    The FAA also routinely engages with the drone industry and other 
key stakeholders through the Drone Advisory Committee (DAC). The DAC 
includes representation from state and local governments and provides 
another avenue of cooperation to address important UAS integration 
issues. Another initiative aimed at local government is Connected by 
Drones. This initiative, which features regular outreach to more than 
100 State and Local entities, was specifically developed to create a 
network among local governments, public safety, schools, and the FAA, 
fostering collaboration and cooperation.

    c.  Enabling increasing levels of autonomy necessary to drive 
efficiency and maintain U.S. leadership in the global drone economy?
    Answer. When it comes to certification of autonomous software, the 
FAA is pursuing regulations that are performance-based to promote 
safety while allowing UAS-related innovation. The FAA remains committed 
to performance-based rules. Focusing on the top-level safety 
performance that is expected, rather than dictating specific detailed 
design(s) that can meet that safety expectation will help drive 
innovation and maintain U.S. leadership in the global drone economy.

    Question 4. To fully realize the safety and efficiency benefits of 
commercial drones, pilots need permission to fly just beyond line of 
sight (BVLOS). For instance, unionized utility workers inspecting a 
transmission tower could fly behind the tower, bridge inspectors could 
fly beneath the bridge deck, and railroad workers could fly just above 
long, stationary trains. Current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
rules make BVLOS flights extremely challenging, even flights below the 
height of surrounding infrastructure where manned aircraft are unlikely 
to transit. What actions will the Administration take in 2021 to 
enable, in a risk-based manner, widespread operation of drones BVLOS 
this year?
    Answer. The Department's main focus is ensuring integration is done 
safely and securely. The DOT's regulatory framework will need to ensure 
safety while enabling the full potential of this industry. When it 
comes to Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), safety is not just about the 
aircraft itself, but how that aircraft can safely integrate into the 
airspace across communities.
    Cooperation among all levels of government is important for the 
safe integration of drones into the airspace. The FAA has a number of 
initiatives to work closely with stakeholders, including the Drone 
Advisory Committee, which includes representation from local 
governments.

    Question 5. The DOT is responsible for a lot of our Nation's 
essential functions: air traffic control, passenger rail, roadway 
safety, and more. The Nation needs DOT employees to do their jobs in 
person. Please provide an update on DOT's efforts to vaccinate its 
essential workers. Further, besides vaccine supply, has the DOT 
launched any unique partnerships to get its employees to vaccine 
appointments, and are there any best practices that the DOT can share?
    Answer. The Department agrees that transportation workers are 
critical to providing essential passenger travel and freight 
transportation throughout the U.S. and worldwide. For example, 
transporting individuals to testing and vaccine sites; transporting 
other essential workers, like healthcare professionals, to their 
workplaces; and keeping essential domestic and global supply chains 
functioning, including the medical supply chain for hospitals and 
health care facilities.
    In terms of specific efforts and best practices for vaccinating DOT 
employees, the Department has been successful in helping vaccinate its 
own essential workers. In April 2021, DOT pursued an agreement with the 
U.S. Department of Commerce to have its eligible employees voluntarily 
vaccinated through an effort to vaccinate Federal workers who work in 
the National Capital Region at the Gaithersburg, MD, campus of the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology. DOT also worked with 
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to have additional 
eligible employees voluntarily vaccinated through a subsequent effort 
to vaccinate Federal workers at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural 
History. Additionally, as vaccinations were just beginning, DOT's 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proactively identified key 
workers such as air traffic controllers and safety inspectors 
geographically. In at least one instance, when a local jurisdiction 
reached out with available vaccinations that may have otherwise 
expired, FAA was able to alert its pre-identified, critical employees 
in the region, resulting in the vaccination of a few hundred of its 
eligible employees. Moreover, the Department and its subcomponents have 
implemented the use of administrative leave for employees for 
vaccinations as promulgated by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force.
    As of January 19, 2022, the Department has a 91 percent vaccination 
rate (employees who are vaccinated with at least one dose) across our 
workforce, with the vast majority being fully vaccinated.

    Question 6. Recently, a DOT-sponsored study released by the Volpe 
Center Institute demonstrated that fully autonomous long-haul trucks 
can lead to more jobs, productivity, and economic growth. Per the 
study, fully autonomous long-haul trucks present an opportunity to spur 
an additional $111 billion in aggregate investment spending across the 
U.S. economy, increase total U.S. employment by 26,400-35,100 jobs per 
year on average, raise annual earnings for all U.S. workers by more 
than $200 per worker per year, produce welfare increases of nearly $23 
billion (up to $69 per person per year), and increase GDP by at least 
0.3 percent, or more than $68 billion, by year 30 of the analysis 
period.
    What concrete steps is the DOT taking to promote safe and swift 
deployment for automated driving technology for trucking?
    Answer. The Department has released multiple guidance documents to 
ensure that both automated vehicles (AV) and commercial motor vehicles 
(CMV) are developed, tested, and deployed in a safe manner. The 
Administration is currently assessing additional steps to encourage 
innovation while ensuring safety for the public and workers--as well as 
high quality jobs in the transportation sector. To do so, we remain in 
close communications with all stakeholders to find the best way forward 
for safe AV and CMV deployment.
    The Department's Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program 
Office (ITS JPO), in close coordination with the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the Federal Highway Administration 
(FHWA), continues to research the technical aspects of safe platooning 
deployments. FMCSA has also worked to produce test data assessing 
variations in heavy duty vehicle stopping distances, and potential 
impacts on platooning operations.

    Question 7. You have indicated support for creating a passenger 
rail trust fund with the potential to annually fund Amtrak at 
historically high levels. Please explain in detail the plans for this 
trust fund, including funding sources and whether it involves new taxes 
and fees on individuals and companies, including on freight railroads 
and Amtrak ticket purchasers.
    Answer. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) is a generational 
investment in America's transportation network that will make 
meaningful public investment in passenger rail. Under the advanced 
Appropriations section in Division J, Amtrak received $22 billion ($16 
billion for the National Network, and $6 billion for the Northeast 
Corridor). The underlying authorization included in the BIL provides 
for further potential investment through an additional $19.2 billion 
for Amtrak ($12.6 for the National Network and $6.5B for the Northeast 
Corridor).

    Question 8. If a passenger rail trust fund is created, will money 
be available to fund private sector passenger rail entities and 
projects? Will you promise to include funding opportunities for the 
private sector in the creation of the trust fund, including for 
passenger rail improvements and railroads?
    Answer. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law offers tremendous 
opportunities for passenger rail investment. In particular, the Federal 
Railroad Administration's Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety 
Improvements (CRISI) program received $5 billion in advanced 
appropriations, and an additional $5 billion is authorized to make a 
transformational investment in passenger rail. The CRISI program has 
been critical for providing rail investment in both public and 
privately-owned rail infrastructure.

    Question 9. Will the proposed creation of a passenger rail trust 
fund include any taxes, fees, obligations or burdens on the freight 
rail industry to support it? Will you promise that freight railroads 
will have no obligations to support a passenger rail trust fund or 
suffer any penalties or additional obligations arising from its 
creation?
    Answer. The Administration is already working to implement the 
provisions of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), which does not 
include taxes or fees on the freight rail industry.

    Question 10. We have heard you outline President Biden's desire to 
add 500,000 EV charging points over the next 10 years to help support 
the expanded adoption and use of EVS that currently account for roughly 
two percent of all new vehicle sales. With respect to 500,000 EV 
charging points:
    a.  Is the DOT involved in this effort? If not, which agency has 
overall responsible for this effort?
    b.  Are those public DC fast chargers (which can refuel a battery 
EV in 30 minutes to an hour) or Level 2 (which can refuel a battery EV 
in 4-8 hours)? What is the mix?
    c.  How many battery EVs would that support? We understand 
California found that about 1.5 million chargers to support 8 million 
EVs in California or about 25% of the total light-duty fleet (about 32 
million vehicles registered in California).
    Answer to a.-c. DOT is working with the U.S. Department of Energy 
and other Federal agencies to deliver on transformational investments 
in clean transportation infrastructure. Through a combination of 
programs, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) will support a 
transformational acceleration in deployment of a mix of chargers in 
apartment buildings, in public parking, throughout communities, and as 
a robust fast charging along our nation's roadways. The type of 
electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) would vary depending on the 
installation location and its core users.
    DOT and DOE have stood up a Joint Office of Energy and 
Transportation to provide technical assistance for the deployment of 
$7.5 billion from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) to build out 
a national EV charging network. DOT released guidance to provide states 
with additional information on the deployment of the BIL-created $5 
billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula (NEVI) 
Program, including guidance on recommended charging capacity for 
charging stations. On June 9, 2022, as directed in BIL, FHWA issued a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that sets minimum standards and 
requirements for EV charging infrastructure funded through the NEVI 
program. Alongside the NPRM, FHWA released a set of FAQs to help states 
draft their EV charging plans, which are due on August 1, 2022. These 
FAQs cover a broad range of topics, including eligible costs, equity, 
workforce, and more. In addition, on June 8, 2022, DOT and DOE 
established an EV Working Group in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act and put out a request for nominations.

    Question 11. Understanding that the DOT and the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) are reviewing the Trump Administration's 
previously finalized auto standards for Model Years 2021-2026, can you 
explain the DOT's timeline for when any modifications will be proposed 
or finalized and how will coordination between EPA and DOT be assured?
    Answer. In the January 20, 2021, Executive Order, President Biden 
directed NHTSA to review the 2020 ``The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient 
(SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light 
Trucks'' final rule. The President further declared the Biden-Harris 
Administration's policy to improve public health and protect our 
environment, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to bolster resilience 
to the impacts of climate change, and to prioritize both environmental 
justice and the creation of the well-paying union jobs necessary to 
deliver on these goals. In March 2022, DOT issued final CAFE standards 
for Model Years 2024-2026, and DOT coordinated with all appropriate 
parties, including EPA, to finalize this rule. DOT and EPA have been 
and will continue to work collaboratively on fuel economy standards and 
greenhouse gas emission standards for future years.

    a.  Do you think the average cost of a new vehicle purchase will 
increase or decrease compared to prices today?
    Answer. It is difficult to forecast the average cost of a new 
vehicle, given a variety of factors that impact price; however, NHTSA's 
final rule estimates that drivers will save close to $100 billion in 
fuel savings for new vehicles sold by 2030.

    b.  How are the DOT and NHTSA viewing the balance between vehicle 
fuel economy improvements, safety, affordability, and investing in 
electric drive technologies?
    Answer. The Department's number one priority will always be safety. 
We also have the chance to transform our transportation sector into a 
21st century system that makes transportation options more affordable 
and reliable for all Americans, creates more communities of 
opportunity, accelerates equitable economic growth, and increases 
global competitiveness. We're already seeing many automakers promoting 
exciting new zero emission vehicles with longer ranges, excellent 
performance, and all-wheel drive. That means using whatever tools we 
have at our disposal to support clean transportation, whether that's 
strengthening our fuel economy standards, delivering on the President's 
promise to build up to 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations, or 
supporting American innovation. I am also committed to ensuring that we 
deliver the benefits of a clean transportation fleet to all 
communities, especially those that have borne a disproportionate burden 
of exposure to air pollution from cars and trucks.

    Question 12. The United States has consistently supported the 
negotiation and implementation of Open Skies agreements since 1992, 
with strong support from both Democratic and Republican 
administrations. Will the Biden Administration continue to uphold this 
Open Skies policy without imposing conditions or requirements that were 
never agreed to nor included in the negotiated Open Skies agreements, 
including the historic Open Skies agreement with the European Union?
    Answer. Open Skies has been the foundation of U.S. international 
air transportation policy since 1992. The policy has enabled the U.S. 
aviation industry to support more that 10 million American jobs and 
$1.7 trillion in economic activity. We continue to recognize the great 
importance of Open Skies to the Department's diverse stakeholders, 
including airports, airlines, labor, members of the traveling and 
shipping public.
    The Department understands our statutory requirement to act 
consistently with the international binding obligations of the United 
States Government under all international air transport agreements to 
which the United States is a party, including the U.S.-EU Air Transport 
Agreement. The Department is also committed to ensuring a level playing 
field for U.S. airlines in international markets based on our Open 
Skies agreements, and Congress has provided the Department with 
statutory and regulatory tools to address anticompetitive behavior.

   Questions from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, 
     Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

    Question 1. Secretary Buttigieg, we are in the process of 
developing the Union Station Expansion Project (SEP). The Federal 
Railroad Administration is currently reviewing public comments on their 
draft environmental impact statement. The SEP seeks to turn the station 
into a truly 21st century multimodal transportation hub with more rail 
options going to the Southeast and the Northeast Corridor, intercity 
and intracity bus options, Metro access and options to use active 
transportation.
    a.  Will you work to ensure that the SEP is not car-centric and 
accommodates all of these modes of transportation, especially those 
that serve lower income communities, like buses?
    Answer. Washington Union Station is the National Capital Region's 
principal intermodal transportation hub and I was honored to meet with 
many of its essential and dedicated front-line workers in one of my 
first public events as Secretary. I recognize the importance of the 
Union Station Expansion Project to support current and future rail 
service and operational needs; facilitate intermodal transportation; 
preserve and maintain the historic station and its features; and 
integrate with the adjacent neighborhoods, businesses, and planned 
development. To address on-going concerns, on February 3, 2021, FRA 
notified stakeholders that the agency decided to revisit project 
planning for the preferred alternative and ensure that Washington Union 
Station remains an intermodal station for trains, buses, and active 
transportation. We are committed to working to meet the transportation 
needs of all communities, including lower income communities and other 
communities that have been historically overburdened and underserved by 
our Nation's transportation systems.

    b.  In addition, the SEP will improve the station's infrastructure, 
enhance efficiency, create new employment opportunities, accommodate 
projected ridership growth, and reduce carbon emissions. Given that 
Union Station is a federal facility, will you work with my office to 
ensure that federal investment in the SEP is a top priority and that 
you will include it in your upcoming Build Back Better funding 
proposal?
    Answer. I am committed to working with you and other stakeholders 
to ensure Union Station meets the needs of the District and region for 
generations to come.

    Question 2. As Co-chair of the Quiet Skies Caucus, I am very 
concerned about the impact of aircraft noise on our communities. In 
December 2020, I led a letter from members of Congress to then-
President-elect Biden, asking him to appoint individuals to the FAA who 
understand the gravity of aircraft noise and would work with the Quiet 
Skies Caucus on these issues. I also led a letter from members of 
Congress to the FAA earlier this month calling attention to the FAA's 
recently released a nationwide survey, which showed that people are far 
more annoyed by aircraft noise than the FAA expected. The FAA, and the 
Department of Transportation, must do more to combat aviation noise.
    Are you, Secretary Buttigieg, committed to working with members of 
Congress and the Quiet Skies Caucus to reduce the impact of aviation 
noise on our constituents?
    Answer. Yes, it is critical that we continue to take action to 
address the impact of aircraft noise on communities. I am committed to 
working with you to address this issue and will ensure that the FAA 
works with key stakeholders, including communities, airports, air 
carriers, and state and local governments to identify potential ways to 
better address aircraft noise.

 Questions from Hon. Rodney Davis to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of 
           Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

    Question 1. A recent DOT study found that fully autonomous long-
haul trucks can lead to more jobs, productivity, and economic growth. 
What is the Department doing to ensure timely deployment of automated 
driving technology in the trucking industry?
    Answer. The Department has released multiple guidance documents to 
ensure that both automated vehicle (AV) and commercial motor vehicles 
(CMV) are developed, tested, and deployed in a safe manner. The 
Administration is currently assessing additional steps to encourage 
innovation while ensuring safety for the public and workers--as well as 
high quality jobs in the transportation sector. To do so, we remain in 
close communications with all stakeholders to find the best way forward 
for safe AV and CMV deployment.
    The Department's Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program 
Office (ITS JPO), in close coordination with the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the Federal Highway Administration 
(FHWA), continues to research the technical aspects of safe platooning 
deployments. FMCSA has also worked to produce test data assessing 
variations in heavy duty vehicle stopping distances, and potential 
impacts on platooning operations.

    Question 2. Last Congress, 144 Representatives, and 35 Senators 
supported a bipartisan bill, the DRIVE-Safe Act, that would address the 
nationwide driver shortage. The proposed legislation would allow 
employers to participate in a two-stage apprenticeship program with 
rigorous training and safety standards for individuals between 18 and 
20 years old, eventually expanding the talent pool of commercial 
drivers.
    Despite inaction in Congress last fall, this legislation's 
popularity led the U.S. Department of Transportation to propose a pilot 
program that shared several components with the DRIVE-Safe Act. That 
said, many interested parties still await action on this critical 
opportunity to address the growing driver shortage.
    Mr. Secretary, are you supportive of this crucial pilot program, 
and when do you expect the Department to take the next step in the 
rulemaking process?
    Answer. On December 16, 2021, the Biden-Harris Administration 
Trucking Action Plan to Strengthen America's Trucking Workforce was 
released. This plan calls on all levels of government, industry, and 
labor to come together and build the next generation trucking 
workforce. Specific immediate actions DOT is taking include providing 
$30 million in funding to states to reduce the barriers to obtaining a 
commercial driver's license, developing a joint DOT-DOL 90-day Trucking 
Apprenticeship Challenge to expand the use of Registered 
Apprenticeships, an enhanced focus on veteran recruitment, and the 
launch of the DOT-DOL Driving Good Jobs initiative to improve the 
quality of trucking jobs. Since the launch of the Challenge on December 
16, 2021, DOL and DOT helped over 130 employers and industry 
associations develop and launch trucking apprenticeship programs and 
hire over 680 truck driver apprentices.
    The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has also extended 
and expanded some Hours of Service waivers for trucks hauling critical 
freight related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Planning for FMCSA's three-year pilot is underway to determine the 
feasibility, benefits, and safety impacts of allowing 18-20 year-old 
military drivers to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in 
interstate commerce. During the three-year program, FMCSA will compare 
safety records of study group participants to existing data on current 
intrastate and interstate drivers. Comparing performance of current 
operators to study group participants will help determine if increased 
training and required use of advanced safety technology can mitigate 
the safety risks associated with younger drivers. After the program's 
data is analyzed, the Secretary of Transportation will report to 
Congress with recommendations for future CDL licensing criteria.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included a provision that 
incorporates many components of the DRIVE-Safe Act and FMCSA is 
committed to implementing that program.

    Question 3. FHWA recently released guidance regarding the Payroll 
Protection Program's forgiveness provision and its relationship with 
the FAR Credits Clause. Illinois DOT has been trying to develop their 
own policies and procedures in the absence of clear federal direction. 
It appears from the FHWA guidance that the FAR Credits Clause should 
only apply to federally funded engineering services contracts. Given 
this guidance, does it follow that state contracts with no federal 
funding would then not be subject to the FAR Credits Clause?
    Answer. The Department worked with small businesses to help them 
fully utilize their PPP loans while ensuring that contractors are not 
charging the Federal government for services that were previously paid 
for by forgiven PPP loans. FHWA worked carefully to provide guidance, 
which was released on March 24, 2021, that clarifies treatment of 
Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans received by consultants 
providing architectural and engineering (A&E) services under Federal-
aid or Federal lands highway program funded contracts. FHWA's guidance 
limits the application of the credit on Federal-aid highway program 
funded contracts to amounts necessary to ensure that the company does 
not receive a windfall by receiving loan forgiveness from the Small 
Business Administration and subsequently being reimbursed by FHWA, 
which would be contrary to governmentwide requirements. FHWA's guidance 
only applies to Federal-aid or Federal lands highway program funded 
contracts.
    The fundamental issue at hand was ensuring that contractors are not 
able to ``double dip'' by receiving forgiven PPP loans while at the 
same time charging the government for those same services. For this 
reason, FHWA's guidance limits the amount of credit recovery to only 
the portion of forgiven loan proceeds which are allocable to the 
Federal-aid highway program funded contract and nothing more.
    FHWA actively participates in regular meetings with representatives 
of State DOTs, the American Council of Engineering Companies, and other 
members of the engineering community to address questions or concerns 
on Federal guidance to ensure consistent implementation.

 Questions from Hon. Steve Cohen to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of 
           Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

    Question 1. Emergency Evacuation Testing (SEAT Act): The Seat 
Egress in Air Travel (SEAT Act) was included in the 2018 FAA 
Reauthorization bill. It directed the FAA to establish minimum seat 
size and distance between rows of seats on commercial aircraft to 
protect the safety of the flying public.
    Before the FAA began this testing, I raised several complaints with 
the previous Administration that their tests were too narrow and did 
not include a sample that was representative of the flying public. I am 
under the impression that the FAA did not use: people over the age of 
60, individuals under the age of 18, lap children, parents seated 
separately from their children, individuals with disabilities, service 
animals, carry-on baggage, individuals with wheelchairs, significantly 
overweight individuals, individuals whose primary language is not 
English.
    Mr. Secretary, in your opinion, should a study that omitted any and 
all of these characteristics inform our policies on cabin evacuations 
and minimum seat sizes?
    Answer. The FAA tests relied on able-bodied adult subjects under 
age 60, consistent with regulatory and ethical standards for human 
testing. Based on CDC classification, almost half of the participants 
were obese and another 27 percent were overweight. In its March 31, 
2022 transmittal of the report to Congress required by Section 337 of 
the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, the FAA acknowledged that 
demographics utilized in its study to address section 577 of the Act 
were limited because the study was designed to maximize the ability to 
identify any differences in egress time due to seat width and pitch. 
The FAA will seek public comment regarding any additional information 
that indicates egress time is affected by seat width and pitch, for 
those demographics not part of the study. And, because evacuation 
safety encompasses many factors beyond the seats, the FAA is 
implementing a formal, continuous review process to assess and address 
evacuation safety, and any issues that arise or are developing in 
service.

    Question 2. Complete Streets:
    a.  How will your experience working on Complete Streets projects 
as Mayor influence the DOT's policies under this Administration?
    Answer. As Mayor and as Secretary, I've seen how important it was 
to prioritize safety for all users across the transportation system. 
Complete Streets are roadway designs that accommodate goods movement 
and multimodal use and are crucial to ensuring our roadways are safe 
for all Americans to travel, whether by walking, bicycling, rolling, 
taking public transportation, or driving. Fortunately, the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law is giving us new tools to ensure safety for 
everyone.

    b.  How can the federal transportation program require street 
designs which promote safety, particularly for vulnerable road users?
    Answer. To reduce serious injuries and fatalities throughout the 
Nation, the Department recently released the National Roadway Safety 
Strategy to outline comprehensive steps to addressing roadway 
fatalities and serious injuries on our Nation's roads. The Strategy 
embodies using the ``Safe System Approach'' to holistically create a 
system of safe roads, safe speeds, safe vehicles, safe road users, and 
post-crash care. Roadway environments must be designed to mitigate 
human mistakes and account for injury tolerances, to encourage safer 
behaviors, and to facilitate safe travel by the most vulnerable users. 
This approach does not accept the current high toll of traffic deaths 
and instead anticipates and accounts for human error and vulnerability 
to save lives. Safe system initiatives engage all stakeholders and are 
similar in approach to the airline industry's embrace of safety 
management systems that resulted in the dramatic decline in air 
fatalities in the 1990s.
    Safety will always remain the number one priority of the 
Department. It is also important to recognize that there is no one-
size-fits-all approach for America's communities when it comes to safe 
street design. It is essential that we continue to provide local 
communities with the technical assistance to implement noteworthy 
safety practices, while providing the flexibility to adjust to local 
conditions.

    Question 3. Underride Guards: On May 5, 2014, Marianne and Jerry 
Karth and the Truck Safety Coalition delivered a petition for 
rulemaking that asked NHTSA to improve the safety of rear underride 
guards on semitrailers. The Karths and the Truck Safety Coalition also 
requested rulemaking to prevent side underride and front override truck 
collisions.
    On July 10, 2014, NHTSA granted, in part, a petition and planned on 
issuing two separate notices--``An advanced notice of proposed 
rulemaking pertaining to rear impact guards and other strategies for 
single unit trucks, and a notice of proposed rulemaking on rear impact 
guards on trailers and semitrailers.''
    a.  How is the Department of Transportation (DOT) responding 
``within a reasonable timeframe'' to the Karth's and the Truck Safety 
Coalition's petition for rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures 
Act (APA) to improve side guards and front override guards (79 FR 
39362)?
    Answer. Improving truck safety is an important priority for us. 
Federal regulations require the back of the trailer to have a guard 
that meets specific crashworthiness standards to reduce the number of 
deaths and serious injuries during rear-end crashes. The Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law requires the Department to take additional actions 
on rear underride guards, and the Department is reviewing these 
requirements and is committed to implementing them consistent with the 
law. The Department is currently working to finalize a rule to upgrade 
existing requirements for rear impact guards on newly manufactured 
trailers and semi-trailers, which is highlighted as a priority action 
in the DOT National Roadway Safety Strategy.
    Additionally, the Department is conducting additional research on 
underride and side guards. We are also looking at whether anything else 
should be done to ensure that an underride crash is recorded as such on 
a police accident report. These efforts will help inform any additional 
steps, including those regarding underride and side guard performance 
standards.

    b.  The Government Accounting Office's report from April 15, 2019 
(Truck Underride Guards: Improved Data Collection, Inspections, and 
Research Needed; GAO-19-264; https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-264), 
recommended that the DOT take steps to provide a standardized 
definition of underride crashes and data fields; share information with 
police departments on identifying underride crashes; establish annual 
inspection requirements for rear guards; and conduct additional 
research on side underride guard.
         The DOT concurred with GAO's recommendations, but does not 
appear to be actively working on or communicating their efforts with 
the public. Could you please provide how the DOT is responding to the 
aforementioned report?
    Answer. Improving truck safety is an important priority for us. The 
Department is currently conducting additional research on underride and 
side guards, and leadership at FMCSA, NHTSA, and OST have been actively 
engaging with stakeholders on this issue. FMCSA issued a final rule 
adding rear underride guards as a required item on the list of annual 
inspections for motor carriers and roadside inspectors. We are also 
looking at whether anything else should be done to ensure that an 
underride crash is recorded as such on a police accident report. These 
efforts will help inform any additional steps, including those 
regarding underride and side guard performance standards.

  Questions from Hon. John Katko to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of 
           Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

    Question 1. Mr. Secretary, I know when you were mayor you focused 
on the role municipal ID cards could play in helping provide better 
services for residents in South Bend. As Transportation Secretary, you 
now oversee another type of ID card--the Commercial Driver's License. I 
have an interest in an aspect of identity that blends those two 
together: digital identity--specifically, ways to accelerate the 
deployment of new mobile Driver's Licenses that can help all Americans 
have a digital version of their driver's licenses that they can use to 
prove who they are online, for applications like obtaining government 
services, opening a new bank account, etc. Have you given any thought 
to the way that the Department of Transportation might be able to play 
a role in helping states accelerate the push to digital identity?
    Answer. The Department supports furthering new and innovative 
technology in support of our policy goals. While driver licensing is a 
State responsibility, the Federal Government does play a role through 
law and regulations in some instances, like REAL ID. I look forward to 
exploring ideas and finding out if there is an appropriate role for 
DOT.

    Question 2. Despite receiving the same FAA certification as 
domestic aircraft stations, aircraft stations in other countries are 
currently allowed to operate without security checks of facilities or 
personnel, without drug & alcohol testing for safety sensitive 
personnel, and without random inspections from FAA personnel. Congress 
has twice directed the FAA to close these gaps and this committee 
passed a bill last Congress to do so a third time. Can you advise on 
FAA's plans to close these loopholes and ensure we have one standard 
for safety and security on airline maintenance?
    Answer. The FAA's proposed rule is currently under development. I 
am committed to advancing the proposal and will keep you apprised on 
the proposed rule's publication.

    Question 3. How is the Department of Transportation laying the 
foundation for the continued development of autonomous vehicle (AV) 
technology to ensure the future of this technology stays in the United 
States? There are several countries investing heavily and encouraging 
innovation and deployment with positive legislation. How is the United 
States positioned to encourage safe deployment of AVs and remain 
competitive internationally?
    Answer. Global competitiveness is one of the priorities of this 
Administration. The Department is committed to supporting the safe 
development, testing and deployment of automated vehicle (AV) 
technology in a way that reflects our priorities and helps ensure that 
U.S. industry leads the world.
    The Department has released multiple guidance documents on 
important considerations in the design, development and testing of AVs 
here in the U.S. and has many regulatory tools at its disposal. NHTSA 
is also reviewing current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and 
using its exemption authorities to support safe testing, development, 
and deployment of AVs. To support safe deployment of AV technologies, 
the Department is pursuing several regulatory initiatives to advance 
the deployment of life-saving technologies that are available to 
consumers today. NHTSA is working on updates to its New Car Assessment 
Program (NCAP) to include modern vehicle safety technologies and 
informing data-driven solutions through continued implementation of its 
Standing General Order (SGO) on incident reporting for vehicles 
equipped with SAE Level 2 advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) or 
SAE Levels 3-5 automated driving systems (ADS).
    Additionally, NHTSA, on behalf of DOT, represents US interests 
across the various international discussions on AV technology including 
under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe's (UNECE) 
Global Forum for Roadway Traffic Safety (WP 1) and World Forum for the 
Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP 29), along with other efforts.
    The Department also recently released innovation principles and 
continues to move forward on standing up and staffing the Highly 
Automated Systems Safety Center of Excellence, to provide a core 
expertise to support assessment of automation applications across all 
modes of transportation, that will help us explore key questions such 
as labor, safety, and environmental impacts. In addition, the 
Department invests in the future of transportation through its 
University Transportation Centers Program, which awards and administers 
grants to consortia of colleges and universities across the United 
States. The UTC Program advances the state-of-the-art in transportation 
research and technology and develops the next generation of 
transportation professionals.

Questions from Hon. John Garamendi to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of 
           Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

    Question 1. Mr. Secretary, will you commit to review and modify the 
Federal Highway Administration's 1983 nationwide waiver exempting all 
``manufactured products'' from ``Buy America'' requirements (33 U.S. 
Code 313)? Congressional intent and federal law are clear: all 
``manufactured projects'' used to construct federally funded 
transportation projects should be made in America, not just iron, 
steel, and reinforced pre-cast cement products. However, that has not 
been the case for nearly 40 years due to this administrative ``Buy 
America'' waiver for federally funded highway projects. Mr. Secretary, 
will you commit to review and modify this 1983 waiver to require that 
at least some ``manufactured products'' paid for with taxpayer funds to 
construct federal highway projects are required to be made in America?
    Answer. President Biden's Executive Order on Made in America 
requires every agency to assess any longstanding or nationwide waivers 
of Buy America and determine whether those waivers are consistent with 
the policy set forth in the Order to ensure that we maximize the use of 
domestic products. Consistent with this requirement, the Department 
reviewed its existing waivers, including the standing Buy America 
waiver for manufactured products that was issued by the Federal Highway 
Administration in 1983. As part of our review, the Department 
coordinated with the Office of Management and Budget's Made in America 
Office. In addition, consistent with Section 70914(d) of the Build 
America, Buy America Act, DOT will publish a notice in the Federal 
Register, requesting public comments on the continued need for a 
general applicability waiver. We will consider those comments as we 
determine whether to continue, discontinue, or revise the waiver in a 
manner consistent with President Biden's Executive Order and the Build 
America, Buy America Act.

    Question 2. Mr. Secretary, will you commit to standardize strong 
domestic content requirements for ``Buy America'' across the various 
agencies/programs within the U.S. Department of Transportation? For 
example, USDOT agencies have differing--and even contradictory--
interpretations for how ``Buy America'' requirements apply to 
components/subcomponents, what constitutes ``American origin,'' or even 
what ``made primarily of steel or iron'' means. Some of these 
contradictions are caused by laws passed by Congress, but many are 
caused by USDOT agencies themselves. While I appreciate that USDOT 
agencies have different responsibilities, surely we can expect that 
USDOT should have more uniform standards across its constituent 
agencies, if only to create a more economical and readily available 
supply of Buy America-compliant products for federally funded 
transportation projects?
    Answer. Yes, the Department is committed to reviewing the content 
requirements for ``Buy America'' across the various agencies/programs 
within the U.S. Department of Transportation.
    Each of our grant-making agencies at DOT has its own Buy America 
statute, with similar but not identical requirements. We recognize that 
this can create a challenge at times, particularly for projects that 
may use more than one source of Federal funding. DOT conducted an 
internal review of its implementation of Buy America laws, pursuant to 
the President's Executive Order. Our review included a consideration of 
how each DOT agency currently administers Buy America laws, and 
identified recommendations to improve implementation and enforcement of 
those requirements across the Department's programs. We will continue 
to coordinate with OMB's Made in America Office to harmonize policies 
across agencies whenever appropriate, consistent with the President's 
goal of maximizing the use of domestic products.

    Question 3. I want to bring to your attention an opportunity for 
your Department and the White House's new ``Made in America'' Office to 
strengthen ``Buy America'' enforcement, administratively without 
Congress. Many of the ``Made in America'' laws outlined in President 
Biden's January 25th Executive Order include ``debarment'' provisions 
intended to exclude bad actors from supplying federally funded projects 
in the future. These debarment authorities are not coordinated across 
the federal government--or even within the USDOT--and remain 
underutilized for ``Buy America'' enforcement. So, will your Department 
consider creating a single, uniform ``debarment'' list for all USDOT 
programs to blacklist suppliers that fraudulently misrepresent or 
mislabel foreign-sourced products as being American made?
    Answer. The Department is committed to enforcing Made in America 
laws at DOT, in keeping with President Biden's vision of ensuring that 
we maximize the use of goods, products, and materials produced in, and 
services offered in, the United States. President Biden's Executive 
Order on Made in America laws reinforces that transparency and accuracy 
about domestic content is important. Under that Executive Order, the 
OMB Made in America Office created a centralized website to collect and 
share information about waivers of such requirements. DOT will continue 
to coordinate with OMB's Made in America Office to identify ways to 
increase transparency to government procurement and spending. 
Additionally, DOT will continue to utilize the government-wide 
suspension and debarment procedures set forth in 48 CFR Subpart 9.4 and 
2 CFR Part 180 as appropriate to ensure that DOT direct contracts and 
financial assistance are only awarded to responsible sources. A 
government-wide list of entities found not presently responsible due to 
suspension or debarment, and accordingly prohibited from receiving 
federal contracts or financial assistance, is found on the System for 
Award Management at SAM.gov.

    Question 4. Mr. Secretary, Chairman DeFazio and I worked with a 
bipartisan group of Members to enact the National Timing Reliance and 
Security Act of 2018 (Section 514 of Public Law 115-282). This law 
(NTRSA) addresses the complete lack of resiliency for position, 
navigation, and timing (PNT) services, which are critical to the 
American infrastructure sector and nearly every citizen. This 
vulnerability was first detailed by the U.S. Department of 
Transportation in a 2001 report recommending backup capabilities be 
deployed to close this gap. In 2014, the U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security defined it as ``a single point of failure'' for critical 
infrastructure. Since 2001, there have been over 18 studies and 
recommendations by the federal government calling for a land-based, 
wireless nationwide backup system.
    In 2015, after more than 15 years of studies and recommendations by 
the federal government, the Obama Administration's PNT Executive 
Committee--chaired by the then-Deputy Secretaries of Transportation and 
Defense--sent the notification to Congress acknowledging this 
significant vulnerability and committed to a two-fold strategy: First, 
the deployment of a land-based ``enhanced long-range navigation'' 
(eLoran) timing system to address this issue immediately; and second, a 
broader approach to cover all PNT vulnerabilities. This well-reasoned 
approach gave Congress encouragement that this national security 
problem would finally be addressed.
    However, in 2018, after no additional action was taken, Congress 
took responsibility to codify the commitments outlined in the 2015 
letter, and on a nearly unanimous bipartisan basis in both Houses, 
passed the NTRSA to implement the land-based timing back up system. The 
legislation and subsequent law stated that the backup would be up and 
running by December 2020.
    Unfortunately, USDOT has yet to issue the request for proposal and 
is now more than two years behind in deploying this much-needed 
capability. In the recently passed Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2021 (Public Law 116-260) Congress provided funding and report language 
instructing USDOT to hire six new staff positions to begin implementing 
the NTRSA.
    My question is this: When will the USDOT release a request for 
proposal to solve this critical vulnerability for our nation's 
infrastructure and national security?
    Answer. As part of the FY 2022 President's Budget, DOT proposed a 
$17 million investment to support a more resilient civil GPS and to 
enable more responsible Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) 
usage. This request included $10 million to begin implementation of the 
recommendations of the Complementary PNT Demonstration Program Report 
published in 2021 and $7 million to develop capabilities for GPS 
interference detection and signal authentication, and support 
implementation of Executive Order 13905, which provided new 
requirements for responsible PNT usage.
    In addition to the requested resources, the FY 2022 President's 
Budget proposed the repeal of the National Timing Resilience and 
Security Act of 2018 (NTRSA), which requires the Secretary of 
Transportation to ``provide for the establishment, sustainment, and 
operation of a land-based, resilient, and reliable alternative timing 
system,'' subject to availability of appropriations. The Administration 
has viewed the requirements of the NTRSA as overly narrow in the type 
of back-up system to be provided (land-based), and in defining the 
Department's role in ensuring a resilient PNT system.
    Through the FY 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress 
modified the NTRSA to remove the land-based requirement. However, this 
action does not address the Administration's stated concern that no 
single solution for the provision of back-up or complementary 
positioning, navigation and/or timing services can meet the diversity 
of critical infrastructure requirements. Further, this action does not 
address the Administration's stated concern that it would be 
inefficient, anti-competitive, and potentially harmful to the existing 
market for back-up/complementary PNT services for the Federal 
Government to procure or otherwise fund a specific solution for non-
Federal users.
    The FY 2023 President's Budget request continues the request to 
repeal the NTRSA, and invests an additional $5 million to continue 
implementation of EO 13905. DOT's focus is on facilitating adoption of 
Complementary PNT technologies into end-user applications by developing 
a similar level of standards, resiliency and vulnerability testing, and 
performance monitoring as exists for GPS. DOT will convene forums 
during 2022 to bring PNT service providers and Critical Infrastructure 
users together to define performance standards in keeping with DOT's 
civil PNT responsibilities so that users are assured that they will get 
the backup PNT services they need to operate safely in the absence of 
GPS by obtaining one of the suite of solutions. DOT also will conduct 
education and outreach in 2022 through the Transportation Systems 
Sector Risk Management Agency on the need to incorporate GPS backup/
Complementary solutions to mitigate risk to safety-critical 
applications. DOT will conduct PNT Vulnerability Assessment and Testing 
in late 2022 into 2023 to stress test and evaluate sources of 
Complementary PNT sources, and ensure these private sector solutions 
meet performance commitments for adoption and use in safety-critical 
transportation applications.

    Question 5. Among the many economic consequences of the pandemic 
has been a major financial hit to domestic airports and related 
businesses employing countless Americans. This hardship comes at a time 
when airports face very significant infrastructure needs, in the near 
and long terms. The country that invented air travel should not have to 
look to other countries' airports with envy, with the American Society 
of Civil Engineers' 2021 scorecard giving our nation's airports a D+ 
grade. Mr. Secretary, how does the need to maintain and improve our 
nation's airports fit into the Administration's infrastructure 
priorities?
    Answer. Airports are a critical component of our nation's 
infrastructure. In the U.S. alone, approximately 3,300 public-use 
airports are eligible to receive Federal funds. While the biggest and 
busiest of our nation's airports move passengers throughout and in and 
out of the country, we rely on thousands of smaller airports to support 
aeromedical flights, firefighting, law enforcement, disaster relief, 
and access to remote communities. Investing in our airports means 
investing in those communities, the jobs they support, and the vital 
connections they make to support American business, trade, education, 
and of course, leisure activities. Nothing unites our nation faster, or 
more safely, than our air transportation system.
    The FAA, primarily through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), 
is committed to continuously investing in this critical infrastructure 
sector, and the recently enacted the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will 
invest $25 billion to address airport needs.

    Question 6. In 2019, a bicameral and bipartisan group of Members of 
Congress, including myself and Chairman DeFazio, worked to enact the 
Transportation Infrastructure Vehicle Security Act (Section 7613 of 
Public Law 116-92). This law (TIVSA) restricts the use of FTA funds to 
procure rolling stock from foreign state-owned enterprises and foreign 
state-subsidized manufacturers. However, the FTA has circumvented 
Congressional intent by misinterpreting TIVSA to grant four U.S. cities 
(Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Philadelphia) a permanent 
administrative exemption. Congressional intent was that transit 
agencies with existing orders and contracts with CRRC may complete 
those, not that FTA grant them an ongoing exemption in perpetuity. Will 
you commit to review and consider modifying these open-ended 
exemptions?
    Answer. With the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act 
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2020, Congress addressed anti-competitive and 
cybersecurity concerns identified with respect to Chinese state-owned 
transit rolling stock manufacturers by limiting the use of Federal 
dollars by transit agencies in procuring railcars and buses. Congress 
also created phase-in periods and exceptions to these limitations, 
which the Executive Branch must respect. DOT continues to adhere to the 
exemption granted by TIVSA to the four transit agencies that had 
entered into contracts with the China Railway Rolling Stock Corporation 
(CRRC) before December 20, 2019. DOT is implementing the statutory 
language.
    Specifically, Congress provided a permanent exception from the 
general prohibition of 49 U.S.C. Sec.  5323(u) for agencies that 
executed a contract for rail rolling stock with an otherwise restricted 
manufacturer prior to December 20, 2019. As a result, the general 
prohibition covering restricted transit vehicle manufacturers (such as 
CRRC) does not apply to the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), the Los 
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), the 
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), and the Southeastern 
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), all of which executed 
contracts with a restricted railcar manufacturer before the date of 
enactment of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2020.
    Since enactment of TIVSA, DOT has advised inquiring members of 
Congress that a statutory amendment would be necessary to remove this 
exemption. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law amended 49 U.S.C. Sec.  
5323(u) to create a new exemption regarding the transit vehicle 
manufacturers that are covered by its restrictions but did not amend 
this permanent exception.

 Questions from Hon. Doug LaMalfa to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of 
           Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

    Question 1. Railroads pay for their own infrastructure and are the 
most energy efficient form of land transportation. Given the recent 
news of a proposed rail merger between the Canadian Pacific (CP) and 
Kansas City Southern (KCS) railroads, what would prevent you from 
supporting a merger that would lead to increasing the amount of freight 
that moves on the railroad?
    Answer. The Surface Transportation Board (STB) is responsible for 
approving the proposed merger. FRA uses its Safety Integration Plan 
(SIP) regulation (49 CFR Part 244) to ensure the railroads involved 
take appropriate action to safely integrate their operations. That 
regulation requires Class I railroads seeking STB approval to 
amalgamate (i.e., combine) operations to develop and implement a SIP to 
address the safety of railroad operations during every phase of the 
proposed amalgamation. In accordance with Part 244, FRA will advise STB 
as to whether the railroads' SIP provides a reasonable assurance of 
safety for the transaction. On December 28, 2021, CP and KCS submitted 
their safety integration plan to FRA, and the plan is currently under 
review.

    Question 2. In recent years, there have been efforts to mandate the 
use of speed limiters in heavy trucks, but these efforts have 
repeatedly failed in Congress. Can you ensure that the Department of 
Transportation does not move ahead on its own with a speed limiter 
mandate?
    Answer. Safety is our top priority at DOT and we must use all 
possible tools to ensure the safety of the traveling public, including 
on our roadways, where we are currently seeing a crisis of increasing 
deaths, including a 13 percent estimated increase from 2020 to 2021 in 
fatalities involving a large truck. Throughout the course of the 
pandemic, we have also seen higher speeds causing significantly more 
loss of life.
    In April of 2022, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
announced its intent to do a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking 
to revisit the speed limiter rulemaking. This will allow stakeholders, 
Congress, and the general public to provide valuable input during the 
notice and comment period in order to inform the Department's actions.

    Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Hon. Pete 
      Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of 
                             Transportation

    Question 1. Historically, the federal government has been a strong 
funding partner to state and local governments on roadway projects. The 
same funding has not been equally available for transit projects. This 
has exacerbated transit inequity, particularly in lower-income 
communities, often communities of color, that may not have access to a 
car and rely on their public transit system.
    a.  What specific plans does the Administration have to remedy 
transit inequity?
    Answer. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides the largest 
investment in public transportation in the nation's history.
    President Biden's commitment to equity includes building a 
transportation system that works for all Americans. That means ensuring 
that in discretionary grant programs, all communities, especially those 
that have historically been left behind or suffered from 
underinvestment, have a fair shot. For example, the Federal Transit 
Administration (FTA) announced the availability of approximately $10 
million in competitive grant funds through a Notice of Funding 
Opportunity (NOFO) for FTA's Pilot Program for Transit-Oriented 
Development (TOD) Planning. The funds will support comprehensive 
planning efforts that help connect communities, improve access to 
public transportation and affordable housing, and support President 
Biden's call to combat climate change, advance environmental justice, 
and promote equitable delivery of benefits to underserved communities.

    a.i.  What are the economic advantages public transit provides for 
lower-income communities?
    Answer. Good public transit options provide lower-income 
communities with access--access not only to jobs, but also healthcare, 
education, food, entertainment, and all aspects of a thriving 
community. Such investments will also mitigate socio-economic 
disparities, advance racial equity, and promote affordable access to 
opportunity.
    Investment in transit will ultimately reduce commute times and 
traffic congestion for everyone, while developing sustainable 
communities across the nation. We have the responsibility to ensure 
that all Americans have equitable access to safe, affordable, and smart 
transportation options.

    b.  Are any considerations being made to increase the federal cost 
share for transit projects, like improving the Capital Investments 
Grants (CIG) Program?
    Answer. On February 16, 2021, FTA rescinded the ``Dear Colleague'' 
letter on the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program issued by FTA on 
June 29, 2018. The policy had previously prohibited states and local 
entities from using federal loans as part of their local funding match 
when applying for grants. The Biden-Harris Administration will rely on 
the CIG statutory framework to ensure projects awarded funding have met 
the requirements of federal public transportation law, the Major 
Capital Investment Projects Final Rule, and the CIG Final Interim 
Policy Guidance.
    DOT continues to proactively identify ways to improve the CIG 
Program. In July, FTA released a Request for Information seeking 
suggestions from all transit stakeholders (e.g., transit authorities, 
planning officials, States, cities, the private sector, and the public) 
on improvements that could be made to the evaluation process for 
projects seeking funding from the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) 
Program. Specifically, FTA seeks input on evaluation measures and data 
sources that can better capture the benefits and costs of transit and 
how the CIG program can facilitate outcomes that maximize those 
benefits. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides significant 
funding for public transit, including for the CIG program.

    Question 2. Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) are becoming 
more popular with consumers and auto manufacturers seeking improved 
safety features. Minimum performance standards for these safety 
features are an essential component to developing safer advanced 
driving systems. This allows those systems to better detect other 
vehicles, hazards, and inform consumers on proper use and management.
    Last year, H.R. 2 included language that required all new passenger 
motor vehicles to be equipped with ADAS and required specific minimum 
performance standards for components of those systems.
    Does the Department intend to establish minimum ADAS standards and 
standardized ADAS terms?
    Answer. ADAS technologies are becoming prevalent in vehicles on our 
roadways. The Department is committed to improving safety and reducing 
the number of deaths and injuries on our roadways. The Department is 
researching ADAS technologies to determine their overall effectiveness 
to reduce crashes and injuries. In addition, the Department will 
continue to work with industry stakeholders on common ADAS 
terminologies and definitions. The Department is also considering 
addressing consumer education on ADAS technologies through revisions to 
the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law requires NHTSA to take numerous 
additional actions on safety including on automated emergency braking, 
advanced drunk driving prevention, and crash avoidance technology. 
NHTSA is committed to implementing these requirements and authorities 
consistent with the law.

    Question 3. If we are to really meet the moment of this climate 
crisis, electrification of our transit network must be central to our 
goals. While many transit agencies across the country are planning and 
taking action to transition to zero-emission bus fleets, many are 
behind in their development.
    a.  What is your message to those agencies that aren't as far 
ahead, or have not been proactive in making the transition to 
electrification?
    Answer. While public transit buses provide an energy efficient 
alternative to single occupancy vehicles, approximately 70 percent of 
buses currently in service are still using conventional diesel or 
diesel hybrid power. FTA's Low or No Emissions competitive grant 
program provides funding to support the transition to low and no 
emission vehicles, and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides $5.6 
billion over five years. In addition, low and no emission vehicles are 
an eligible expense under FTA's Buses and Bus Facilities formula and 
competitive programs. It should be noted that there are billions of 
dollars available annually in FTA's formula funding programs that could 
be spent on eligible activities that support the transition to 
electrification. FTA will continue to provide guidance and technical 
assistance to support transit agencies as they transition their fleets.

    b.  How can this Committee, in collaboration with DOT, further 
enable and incentivize transit agencies to work on planning, preparing, 
modernizing facilities, and transitioning to zero emission buses 
sooner?
    Answer. FTA's Low or No Emissions competitive grant program 
provides funding for low or no emissions bus projects that reduce 
energy consumption and harmful emissions. However, demand for the 
program far outpaces the amount of funding available. That is why the 
Administration looks forward to implementing provisions of the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which includes funds to replace diesel 
transit vehicles with zero and low emission fleets.

    c.  Do you believe consumers are incentivized to purchase electric 
vehicles (EV)?
      i.  In your view, are there ways we can expand consumer 
incentives to purchase an EV?
      ii.  Further, how we can ensure that the ability to purchase an 
EV is not restricted by class/socioeconomic limitations?
    Answer to c., c.i., & c.ii. We have the chance to transform our 
transportation sector into a 21st century system that makes 
transportation options more affordable and reliable for all Americans, 
creates more communities of opportunity, accelerates equitable economic 
growth, and increases global competitiveness. We want to rebuild our 
infrastructure in a way that not only is more resilient but helps fight 
climate change. The auto industry is also demonstrating their 
commitment to a voluntary shift to EV manufacturing and are in the 
process of rolling out new hybrid and EV models ranging from sub-
compacts to pick-up trucks that are aimed at meeting a wide variety of 
financial, performance, and aesthetic needs.
    Developments in battery and charging technology, the auto 
industry's release of a wider range of increasingly affordable EVs, and 
additional support from the Administration for the EV domestic supply 
chain are also expected to contribute to a decrease in the upfront 
purchase costs of EVs. According to a study by Consumer Reports, EV 
drivers can save thousands of dollars over the life of the vehicle 
thanks to reduced fuel and maintenance costs. The Administration has 
also advocated for tax incentives that would further reduce the upfront 
cost of EVs.

Questions from Hon. Mike Gallagher to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of 
           Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

    Question 1. Secretary Buttigieg, in your testimony, you highlight 
the importance of investing in our maritime ports.
    a.  Coming from a Great Lakes state, would you agree that our Great 
Lakes ports play a critical role in our economy, not just in the 
Midwest but nationwide?
    Answer. Yes, both maritime commerce and ports on the Great Lakes 
are critical components of the economy of the United States. The 2018 
study Economic Impacts of Maritime Shipping in the Great Lakes-St. 
Lawrence Region estimated that more than 140 million metric tons of 
cargo, valued at $15 billion, is moved on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence 
Seaway System every year. According to the Lake Carriers Association, 
the U.S.-flag fleet accounts for about 90 million tons of those 
cargoes. This maritime trade sustains over 145,000 U.S. jobs and $10.5 
billion in salaries with a total economic impact of $35 billion.

    b.  Given their importance to our nation's economy, would you agree 
that it's essential to support these ports year-round, including 
through the Coast Guard's critical ice breaking mission?
    Answer. Our Great Lakes ports are a critical component of the 
United States economy, and their ability to remain open for navigation 
is essential. The U.S. Coast Guard, which is under the Department of 
Homeland Security, is required to provide icebreaking capability on the 
Great Lakes to keep our ports, channels, and harbors open to navigation 
during the winter months. The U.S. Coast Guard is critical in ensuring 
our nation's commerce continues to flow on the Great Lakes and support 
America's economy. DOT works closely with the Coast Guard to achieve 
our shared missions.

    c.  The Coast Guard's icebreaking mission was established via 
executive order 85 years ago. Given how much has changed across our 
economy since then, what benefits would you see in taking a look at 
federal icebreaking standards and ensuring they are best meeting the 
nation's economic needs?
    Answer. It is my understanding that the U.S. Coast Guard, which is 
under the Department of Homeland Security, periodically evaluates its 
domestic icebreaking policies to address changes in factors that 
influence their mission. As our nation's waterborne commerce continues 
to expand, new changes in policy may be needed, and I am confident that 
our men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard will continue to meet future 
mission needs.

    Question 2. The Wall Street Journal recently reported [https://
www.wsj.com/articles/americans-drove-fewer-miles-in-2020-pedestrians-
werent-any-safer-11616472061] that pedestrian deaths related to car 
accidents were up 20% in 2020, despite the 16% drop in miles driven. 
That follows the Journal's headline from last year: More American 
Pedestrians Are Dying Than in the Past 30 Years [https://www.wsj.com/
articles/more-american-pedestrians-are-dying-than-in-past-30-years-
11582779660]. Just two days before this hearing, AAA issued a report 
[https://fox11online.com/news/local/wisconsin-sees-significant-
increase-in-wrong-way-fatal-crashes-according-to-aaa] citing, in my 
home state of Wisconsin, a 230% increase in fatal wrong way driving 
crashes over recent years, giving us the third highest rate in the 
nation. This trend should be going in the opposite direction, 
considering the advances we've made in auto safety technology. But we 
have credible evidence that distracted driving is on the rise, injuring 
and at times killing so many Americans. I've introduced legislation--
the SAFE TO DRIVE Act--that will allow states to enact their own 
solutions to prevent distracted driving. I think the Department of 
Transportation can be an active supporter of those efforts.
    a.  What is your plan to address the spike in distracted driving? 
How does the SAFE TO DRIVE Act (H.R. 762) fit into your strategy?
    Answer. Safety remains the number one priority of the Department. 
We are facing a crisis on our nation's roadways, with Americans 
increasingly losing their lives and sustaining life-changing injuries 
in preventable crashes. NHTSA projects that an estimated 42,915 people 
died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2021, a 10.5 percent increase 
from the 38,824 fatalities in 2020. Specifically, pedestrian deaths are 
estimated to rise 13 percent. To address this crisis, the Department 
recently released its National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS), which 
uses a ``Safe System Approach'' to help ensure safe roads, safe speeds, 
safe vehicles, and safe road users. The NRSS provides concrete steps 
that the Department will take to address this crisis systemically and 
prevent these tragic and avoidable deaths and serious injuries.
    As we expand and modernize a world-class transportation system, our 
rules, regulations, and programs that ensure everyone's safety must 
keep pace. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
is a leader in addressing distracted driving by educating Americans 
about its dangers and partnering with the states and other stakeholders 
against distracted driving that help keep us safe. In May, NHTSA 
released $740 million in grant funding for the 402 State and Community 
Grant Program, which focuses on reducing risky behavior, and Section 
405 National Priority Safety Program, which aims to address an array of 
national priorities for reducing roadway deaths. In an effort to reduce 
traffic accidents resulting in deaths, injuries, and property damage, 
states are encouraged to use these federal funds under various program 
areas including combatting unsafe driving behavior. In addition, states 
are encouraged to address safety concerns among vulnerable road users 
and overrepresented populations. NHTSA's campaigns and public service 
announcements make the case to Americans that safe driving means 
driving without distractions. The foundation of NHTSA's efforts on 
distracted driving and other risky driving behaviors is our partnership 
with the states and other partners. The states determine laws affecting 
distracted driving, but NHTSA provides federal investments in the 
locally driven strategies that address the states' specific needs. One 
of the highlights of this relationship comes during April's Distracted 
Driving Awareness Month, which pairs a national advertising campaign 
with law enforcement called U Drive. U Text. U Pay.
    Additionally, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law requires NHTSA to 
conduct research to address driver distraction and initiate rulemaking 
in accordance with 49 USC 30111. NHTSA is committed to implementing 
these requirements consistent with the law.

    b.  There are many challenges facing law enforcement and Wisconsin 
communities when it comes to drug-driving--a lack of reliable roadside 
tests and a uniform standard to measure inebriation. How specifically 
will you address this issue to keep our roadways safe?
    Answer. The Department is committed to improving safety and 
reducing the number of deaths and injuries on our roadways. In addition 
to conducting foundational research to understand the effects of drugs 
on driving, NHTSA supports training, education, best practices, and 
countermeasures to address drug-impaired driving, including training 
for prosecutors and education and information to judges. NHTSA has 
developed a Drug-Impaired Driving Criminal Justice Evaluation Tool 
designed to allow agencies to assess the strength of their drug-
impaired driving programs. NHTSA also leads efforts to educate 
Americans about the many substances that can impair driving, including 
alcohol, some over-the-counter and prescription drugs and illegal 
drugs. NHTSA is raising awareness of the dangers of drug-impaired 
driving through national campaigns: If You Feel Different, You Drive 
Different; Drive High, Get a DUI; and There is More Than One Way to be 
Under the Influence.

    c.  How can the members of this Committee and Congress work with 
the Administration to reverse this terrible trend of pedestrian deaths 
due to distracted driving?
    Answer. These trends are deeply concerning--and we must reverse 
them. Indications show that behavioral safety issues are playing a role 
in the increase in fatalities. Distraction is one such behavioral 
issue, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will 
continue to invest in activities that prevent distracted driving 
through Bipartisan Infrastructure Law programs, such as the National 
Priority Safety Programs (Section 405 funding) and associated grants 
for States with distracted driving laws, as well as Congressionally 
directed research on motor vehicle monitoring systems to minimize or 
eliminate distraction and driver disengagement. Distraction and the 
safety of people walking, biking, and using personal conveyance or 
micromobility will be a consideration as we implement those programs. 
Safety is the Department's top priority, and we appreciate the 
resources provided by the Committee to help DOT take steps to reverse 
these trends and help prevent roadway deaths.

    Question 3. Secretary Buttigieg, you stated in your testimony that 
the transportation sector is the leading contributor to climate change 
in the United States, and your Department will have a key role in 
advancing our nation's climate policy. As companies look to reduce 
their carbon footprint in transportation and logistics, there are 
proposals that, if implemented today, would have a significant impact 
on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The 2016 U.S. Department of 
Transportation Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limit Study found 
that shifting to a six axle, 91,000-pound truck configuration would 
result in a 2.4-billion-pound reduction in annual carbon dioxide (CO2) 
emissions, a $358-million reduction in annual congestion costs, and a 
1.2 billion-mile reduction in annual vehicle miles traveled on U.S. 
road.
    A provision in the CARES Act allowed states to issue permits 
allowing trucks to operate above federal weight limits on Interstates 
during the COVID-19 crisis to provide much needed supplies to families 
and communities. Companies across the US were able to take advantage of 
this provision and found a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions with 
no increased safety risk when they were able to fill trucks to a higher 
capacity. One company found that during the limited time frame they 
were allowed to operate heavier trucks that they saved 2.78 metric tons 
of carbon dioxide equivalent and saved 272 gallons of diesel. If they 
were able to implement this across the company's use of tractor-
semitrailers, they would save 16% of greenhouse gas emissions from 
transportation, which is akin to taking 8,279 cars off the road for a 
year.
    This would be the case across the industry if a responsible pilot 
program to increase gross vehicle weights on interstate highways in a 
limited number of states was implemented.
    a.  Should the federal government support pilot programs, like the 
one mentioned above, that provide the transportation sector with the 
opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, collect data, reduce 
road wear and tear, increase efficiency in the supply chain, and 
decrease the chance of crashes on interstate highways?
    b.  Would the Biden Administration support enactment of a limited 
pilot program to increase gross vehicle weight limits that has been 
proven to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with no increased safety 
risk?
    Answer to a. & b. Truck size and weight is controlled by Federal 
statute. States must ensure that commercial motor vehicles comply with 
Federal size and weight requirements. FHWA is responsible for ensuring 
State compliance with such requirements, as well as related 
requirements, like bridge and tunnel safety. The Department stands 
ready to provide technical assistance for any changes that Congress 
proposes in this area.

    Question 4. According to the DOT Working Group on Small Community 
Air Service [https://ci.pierre.sd.us/DocumentCenter/View/1679/DOT-
Working-Group-on-Small-Community-Air-Service-Report?bidId=], between 
2007 and 2016, more than 50 airports lost scheduled air service 
altogether due to the effects of the Great Recession. Additionally, 
non-hub and small-hub airports saw departures reduced by a factor five 
times worse than reductions at large hub airports, with smaller 
communities losing more than 31% of their scheduled departures. Today, 
the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our economy, demand for air 
travel, and on the airline industry is much greater than the Great 
Recession, and we find ourselves once again in a situation that could 
have irrevocable consequences for small community air service 
throughout the country.
    Approximately 170 communities in rural areas in 36 states and 
territories throughout the country rely on the Essential Air Service 
Program to ensure that their communities remain connected to the air 
transportation system and aren't at risk for complete air service loss. 
According to a 2017 study, passenger service at these EAS airports 
carried an economic impact of $2 billion, which will be essential as 
these communities rebuild their economies from the pandemic.
    Unfortunately, many communities facing a total risk of air loss 
service will not be able to rely on the EAS program as an important 
safety net, since only communities that participated in the program in 
2012 are eligible for the program, today.
    Is the Department willing to work with Congress to allow additional 
communities to temporarily enter the EAS program or provide some other 
form of assistance through the Small Community Air Service Development 
Program to prevent a complete loss of air service in order to assist 
them with their economic recovery from the pandemic?
    Answer. DOT is committed to keeping small communities connected to 
vital air transportation services that foster economic opportunity and 
help meet critical needs. The Small Community Air Service Development 
Program (SCASDP) and Essential Air Service (EAS) are two tools that 
allow us to provide direct assistance in support of aviation recovery; 
however, these programs work very differently.
    SCASDP is a discretionary grant program, and as such, requires 
communities to submit applications that are evaluated in a competitive 
grant process based on established criteria, and the program is 
intended to provide limited assistance with self-sustaining service as 
an end goal.
    EAS provides ongoing direct subsidy to EAS-eligible communities 
where commercially sustainable service is unlikely. EAS communities 
receive funding based solely on eligibility. Communities do not compete 
for funding. New communities are not allowed in the program, except for 
Alaska and Hawaii, which have special eligibility allowances under 49 
U.S.C. Sec.  41731.
    Yes, the Department is willing to work with Congress through both 
programs to help more communities either achieve sustainable service 
under SCASDP, or, if 49 U.S.C. Sec. 41731 is amended, temporarily enter 
the EAS program to obtain subsidized service. The Department stands 
ready to help refine these goals through technical assistance and help 
ensure they can be achieved under the most appropriate means.

    Question 5. As air travel rebounds, multiple studies indicate that 
the existing pilot shortage will be exacerbated. In early 2020, about 
half of all U.S. qualified pilots faced mandatory retirement within 15 
years, and the COVID-19 pandemic drove early exits that have been 
estimated at about 10%. At the same time, fewer pilots are entering the 
pipeline. According to the FAA's pilot airmen data, 2021 is on pace to 
produce 66% fewer new ATP AMEL airmen. This represents an eight-year 
low.
    The higher cost of flight training has been identified by GAO as a 
chief impediment to increasing enrollment at flight training programs 
especially at colleges and universities where flight training fees add 
$50,000 or more to the cost of attendance, including tuition, which is 
well above the cap for federal financial aid.
    a.  Given the need to expand the pilot workforce, does the 
Department anticipate pursuing any initiatives for attracting a new 
generation of qualified and skilled professionals?
    Answer. The domestic aviation industry is experiencing a 
significant pilot shortage, which is disproportionately affecting 
smaller, regional carriers, and is expected to intensify in the near-
term and continue for a period of many months. Safety is still 
paramount to DOT and the aviation industry. As we seek solutions and 
means to make piloting careers appeal to more people, that must include 
a more diverse array of people.
    There is no quick fix to the current labor market challenges, which 
are the result of multiple factors. The pandemic intensified the 
preexisting difficulties regarding pilot recruitment and retention. 
Early retirement programs and voluntary departures aimed at reducing 
long-term costs thinned airline staff.
    DOT is working to support the aviation industry efforts with the 
following actions to return piloting to a premier profession:
      The FAA will shortly release a second Notice of Funding 
Opportunity for the Aircraft Pilots Workforce Development Grants 
Program that will help foster aviation interest in high school age 
children with curriculum and experiences that should be designed to get 
them started toward careers in aviation.
      The FAA's regions have each adopted a school to foster an 
early interest in aviation and expand STEM education.

    b.  Would your department support working with the Department of 
Education, Labor, or Commerce to increase financial resources to help 
more aspiring pilots access flight training?
    Answer. Yes, DOT has had coordinated, exploratory conversations 
with the Departments of Education and Labor to explore ways in which 
the federal government could work with the airline industry and 
training schools to develop talent pipelines that start with 
recruitment of diverse training candidates and includes better use of 
mentoring to help with high washout rates of flight training, covering 
costs of flight training in addition to education, and giving retirees 
with vital flight knowledge ways to contribute beyond age 65 by helping 
develop the next generation of pilots. DOT stands ready to help with 
technical assistance on these ideas in order to meet Congress' desire 
to address these challenges.

 Questions from Hon. Andre Carson to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of 
           Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

    Question 1. I'm very concerned about threats to transit funding, 
especially in our home state of Indiana. Transit funding for green 
projects like the Bus Rapid Transit System, including the Red Line, 
have been the subject of state bills to cut the state matches, which I 
believe are overly prescriptive and punitive. This is disappointing 
because the project grew out of bipartisan cooperation between the 
former Republican Mayor of Indianapolis, and another former mayor and 
for Secretary Anthony Foxx. Their bipartisan work resulted in budget 
support from the White House and authorization and appropriations from 
Congress. This threat to transit funding is not unique to Indiana and 
I'd like to get your insights about the best way to defeat these short-
sighted efforts.
    Answer. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) provides the 
largest investment in public transportation in the nation's history. In 
total, the new investments and reauthorization in the BIL provide $91.2 
billion in guaranteed funding for public transit over the next five 
years. The legislation will expand public transit options across every 
state in the country; replace thousands of deficient transit vehicles, 
including buses, with clean, zero emission vehicles; and improve 
accessibility for the elderly and people with disabilities.

    Question 2. Secretary Buttigieg, we have heard the President 
outline a desire to create millions of new jobs in manufacturing and 
other sectors due to the Administration's focus on Climate Change and 
the desire to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What 
estimate is the Administration relying upon to calculate these millions 
of new jobs due to the fact that we'll likely experience a significant 
job loss when it comes to highly skilled workers currently employed at 
engine and transmission plants?
    Answer. Addressing climate change will create high-quality jobs 
throughout our economy. The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to 
supporting a market-based shift to clean energy sources to power our 
economy, which will create jobs needed to manufacture and install 
renewable energy equipment, for example. The Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law will also create jobs by domestically investing Federal funding in 
and supporting the EV manufacturing supply chain. Supporting and 
enabling the shift to electric vehicles will help to create jobs 
throughout the larger domestic electrical vehicle supply chain--from 
retrofitting vehicle manufacturing plants to the production of EV 
batteries. The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to ensuring 
that these exciting opportunities in a clean energy economy are shared 
by all Americans.

    Question 3. Additionally, the average cost of a new vehicle sold 
today is roughly $40,000--and battery electric, plug-in hybrid, or fuel 
cell vehicles cost roughly $10,000 or more than a conventional vehicle. 
When do you believe that my constituents and the American public will 
see price parity between the purchase price of an Electrified vehicle 
and conventional vehicle?
    Answer. We have the chance to transform our transportation sector 
into a 21st century system that makes transportation options more 
affordable and reliable for all Americans, creates more communities of 
opportunity, accelerates equitable economic growth, and increases 
global competitiveness. The auto industry is demonstrating its 
commitment to a voluntary shift to EV manufacturing and are in the 
process of rolling out new hybrid and EV models ranging from sub-
compacts to pick-up trucks that are aimed at meeting a wide variety of 
financial, performance, and aesthetic needs.
    Developments in battery and charging technology, the auto 
industry's release of a wider range of increasingly affordable EVs, and 
additional support from the Administration for the EV domestic supply 
chain are also expected to contribute to a decrease in the upfront 
purchase costs of EVs. According to a study by Consumer Reports, EV 
drivers can save thousands of dollars over the life of the vehicle 
thanks to reduced fuel and maintenance costs. Fuel cell vehicles are 
expected to follow a similar trajectory, particularly the mid- to 
heavy-duty vehicles, with current investments in hydrogen technology 
development, supply chains, and infrastructure. The Administration has 
also advocated for tax incentives that would further reduce the upfront 
cost of EVs.

 Questions from Hon. Tim Burchett to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of 
           Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

    Question 1. Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) are becoming 
more popular with consumers and auto manufacturers seeking improved 
safety features. What current and future resources are available to the 
Department to establish minimum ADAS standards? Does the Department 
intend to establish minimum standards or standardize terms?
    Answer. The Department is committed to improving safety and 
reducing the number of deaths and injuries on our roadways. This 
Administration believes that data should inform decisions. The 
Department is researching ADAS technologies to determine their overall 
effectiveness to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities. After this 
research is completed, we will use the data to define next steps, which 
may include harmonizing test procedures with other countries and/or 
consumer information programs, regulations, and/or incorporation into 
NCAP. To inform data-driven solutions, NHTSA will continue implementing 
its Standing General Order (SGO) on incident reporting for vehicles 
equipped with SAE Level 2 advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) or 
SAE Levels 3-5 automated driving systems (ADS). NHTSA released the SGO 
data on its website on June 15, 2022, and anticipates updating the data 
on a monthly basis.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law requires NHTSA to take numerous 
additional actions on safety including on automated emergency braking, 
advanced drunk driving prevention, crash avoidance technology, and 
NCAP. NHTSA is reviewing these requirements and authorities and is 
committed to implementing them consistent with the law.

    Question 2. As a former mayor, I worked to limit unnecessary 
spending and promote competition by contracting with the private 
sector, rather than establishing duplicative services within the 
government. Often, services such as intra-city bus services, 
engineering, construction, surveying and mapping are carried out by 
governments as well as private firms. Do you believe that, in many 
cases, the private sector is better equipped to execute a project than 
the federal government alone? How will you work to contract out, 
privatize, or review the cost and quality of government versus private 
sector performance?
    Answer. I consider it important to engage the private sector and 
make use of all appropriate tools to ensure that DOT is providing the 
most efficient and effective programs on behalf of the American people.

    Question 3. Secretary, you have previously outlined the President's 
desire to add 500,000 Electric Vehicle charging points over the next 10 
years. Is the U.S. DOT involved in this effort? If not, which agency 
has overall responsibility for this effort? Would these be public DC 
fast chargers or Level 2? How many battery EVs would that support? How 
will the private sector be engaged to prevent unfair competition from 
government or public utilities?
    Answer. DOT is working with the U.S. Department of Energy and other 
Federal agencies to deliver on President Biden's infrastructure 
priorities. Through a combination of programs, the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law (BIL) is supporting a transformational acceleration 
in the deployment of a mix of chargers in apartment buildings, in 
public parking, throughout communities, and robust fast charging along 
our nation's roadways. The type of electric vehicle supply equipment 
(EVSE) would vary depending on the installation location and its core 
users.
    DOT and DOE have stood up a Joint Office of Energy and 
Transportation to provide technical assistance for the deployment of 
$7.5 billion from BIL to build out a national EV charging network. DOT 
released guidance to provide states with additional information on the 
deployment of the BIL-created $5 billion National Electric Vehicle 
Infrastructure Formula (NEVI) Program, including guidance on 
recommended charging capacity for charging stations. On June 9, 2022, 
as directed in BIL, FHWA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that 
sets minimum standards and requirements for EV charging infrastructure 
funded through the NEVI program. Alongside the NPRM, FHWA released a 
set of FAQs to help states draft their EV charging plans, which are due 
on August 1, 2022. These FAQs cover a broad range of topics, including 
eligible costs, equity, workforce, and more. In addition, on June 8, 
2022, DOT and DOE established an EV Working Group in accordance with 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act and put out a request for 
nominations.

    Question 4. Understanding that the U.S. DOT and the Environmental 
Protection Agency are reviewing the Trump Administration's previously 
finalized auto standards for Model Years 2021-2026, can you share DOT's 
timeline for when any modifications will be proposed or finalized and 
how will coordination between EPA and DOT be assured? Do you think the 
average cost of a new vehicle purchase will increase or decrease 
compared to prices today? How is DOT/NHTSA viewing the balance between 
vehicle fuel economy improvements, safety, affordability, and new 
technologies?
    Answer. In the January 20, 2021, Executive Order, President Biden 
directed NHTSA to review the 2020 ``The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient 
(SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light 
Trucks'' final rule. The President further declared the Biden-Harris 
Administration's policy to improve public health and protect our 
environment, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to bolster resilience 
to the impacts of climate change, and to prioritize both environmental 
justice and the creation of the well-paying union jobs necessary to 
deliver on these goals. In August 2021, DOT proposed new CAFE standards 
for Model Years 2024-2026, and DOT then coordinated with all 
appropriate parties to finalize this rule. Updates are also available 
at NHTSA.gov/fuel-economy.
    While it is difficult to forecast the average cost of a new 
vehicle, given a variety of factors that impact price, NHTSA's final 
rule estimates that drivers will save close to $100 billion in fuel 
savings for new vehicles sold by 2030.
    We also have the chance to transform our transportation sector into 
a 21st century system that creates more communities of opportunity, 
accelerates equitable economic growth, and increases global 
competitiveness. We're already seeing many automakers promoting 
exciting new zero emission vehicles with longer ranges, excellent 
performance, and all-wheel drive. That means using whatever tools we 
have at our disposal to support clean transportation, whether that's 
strengthening our fuel economy standards, delivering on the President's 
promise to build 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations, or 
supporting American innovation. I am also committed to ensuring that we 
deliver the benefits of a clean transportation fleet to all 
communities, especially those that have borne a disproportionate burden 
of exposure to air pollution from cars and trucks.

Questions from Hon. Jared Huffman to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of 
           Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

    Question 1. Active modes of transportation offer tools to help 
address the nexus of climate change and transportation by reducing 
emissions. How does the Department plan to prioritize bikes and active 
transportation across programs to support lower emissions?
    Answer. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) includes funding to 
improve road safety for all users, including increases to existing 
safety programs and a new Safe Streets and Roads for All program to 
reduce crashes and fatalities, especially for cyclists and pedestrians.
    Further, the plan focuses on restoring and modernizing our 
infrastructure--transforming it to make it safer, more resilient to 
climate, and more equitable for all modes of transportation including 
pedestrians, bicyclists, and other micro mobility modes.

    Question 2. Many communities already have barriers to accessing 
bikes as a mode of transportation because they lack high quality, 
connected, and safe infrastructure. How will you prioritize communities 
in the most need of choice and safety?
    Answer. As the COVID-19 pandemic has shown us, roads have become a 
place for much more than cars--restaurants, pedestrian walkways--and we 
must adapt our safety systems accordingly. We're talking not only about 
automobile users, but also those who use public transportation or 
travel by bike or foot in our communities. The BIL also includes 
funding for a new program that will reconnect neighborhoods cut off by 
historic investments and ensure new projects increase opportunity, 
advance racial equity and environmental justice, and promote affordable 
access.

    Question 3. Electric bicycles continue to be the largest growth 
sector of the bicycle market and are increasingly being used to replace 
car trips. As we consider broad-scale vehicle electrification, what 
role do you see e-bikes playing in making our transportation systems 
more resilient?
    Answer. Electric bikes (e-bikes) have the potential to help reduce 
emissions by taking more cars off the road, but they must be safe in 
order to be viable. As the COVID-19 pandemic has shown us, roads have 
become a place for much more than cars, and we must adapt our safety 
systems accordingly. And we are talking not only about in terms of 
automobile users, but also those who use public transportation or 
travel by bike, including electric bikes (e-bikes), or on foot in our 
communities. We are committed to creating safe networks, and we work 
actively with Federal-aid recipients to help them identify areas in 
their community that lack a complete network for pedestrian or bicycle 
transportation.

    Question 4. In your February 25 joint statement with Transport 
Canada on the nexus between transportation and climate change, you 
stated, ``We intend to advance the development and deployment of high 
integrity sustainable aviation fuels.'' The development of sustainable 
aviation fuel (SAF) has made great strides, and the big hurdle now for 
SAF is producing SAF in quantities that will have a significant impact 
in reducing carbon levels in the hard to decarbonize aviation sector. 
SAF is the most cost effective and reliable option for decarbonizing 
aviation. Fred Smith, the Chairman of Fed Ex, in testimony last week, 
indicated current efforts to replace carbon-based jet fuels are limited 
because of costs associated with sustainable aircraft fuels.
    Do you believe federal government incentives like a SAF blender's 
tax credit (BTC) is a solution to scale up the industry?
    Question 5. Would the blenders tax credit proposal of $1.50/gal. 
for sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) that achieve a 50% reduction in 
GHG, bring the cost of SAF close to parity with regular jet fuel?
    Answer to 4 & 5. Sustainable aviation fuels offer the best ongoing 
opportunity to reduce emissions from the aviation sector, given the 
limitations and energy density of battery technology today for aviation 
uses. Adequately addressing the cost disparity of the renewable fuels 
market and the existing fossil fuel supply of aviation fuel will be 
critical to achieving wide-spread production and deployment, spurring 
job creation in agriculture, refining, construction and logistics 
throughout the nation, and to meeting U.S. aviation climate 
commitments, including those made at the International Civil Aviation 
Organization and the Paris Agreement. In September 2021, several 
Federal agencies, including DOT, DOE and USDA, came together to support 
the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Grand Challenge, and this collaboration 
will jointly leverage existing authorities and resources to promote 
sustainable fuel production.

    Question 6. On August 16, 2016, the EPA determined that greenhouse 
gases from aircraft engines endangered public health and welfare. 42 
USC Section 44714 creates a non-discretionary duty for FAA to prescribe 
fuel standards to control or eliminate emissions from any pollutant for 
which EPA has made an endangerment finding under Section 231 of the 
Clean Air Act. Has FAA examined this statutory duty to create a fuel 
standard to control aircraft greenhouse gas emissions?
    Answer. The FAA has examined its responsibilities under the 
statutory requirements and intends to implement them. For example, this 
may include changes to aircraft certification regulations.

Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of 
           Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

    Question 1. The Department of Transportation released a 
Congressionally-authorized study focusing on insurance requirements for 
commercial motor vehicle operators. The study found that damages in 
over 99% of crashes involving large trucks were covered by the current 
$750,000 minimum insurance requirement for motor carriers.
    Despite this, and that the lack of reputable research indicating 
any increase would improve highway safety, some Members of Congress are 
proposing raising the minimum to anywhere from $2,000,000 to nearly 
$5,000,000.
    Truckers, farmers, and manufacturers have warned us such an 
increase is not only unnecessary but would also have a devastating 
impact on their operations and force many small operators, 96% of 
registered motor carriers, out of business entirely.
    If efforts to legislate this harmful and controversial policy fail, 
can you ensure DOT will not circumvent Congress and mandate an 
insurance increase through the regulatory process, given the absence of 
data indicating it is needed or would improve safety?
    Answer. In 2017, DOT withdrew its rulemaking related to insurance 
minimums for motor carriers due to a lack of appropriate data. 
Currently, FMCSA is not able to provide a broader assessment of the 
appropriateness of the motor carrier financial responsibility 
requirements.

    Question 2. There is a great deal of attention in public discourse 
about the coming wave of battery electric vehicles. I know there is a 
strong push from some House Members for a ``green new deal'' in which 
internal combustion engines are quickly replaced by battery powered 
motors. As we consider the funding needs of our nation's transportation 
system, I am concerned that the hope of an all-battery fleet outweighs 
the reality of the situation.
    Americans typically keep their vehicles for an average of 12 years, 
and some keep their cars and trucks much longer. It takes 6-7 years for 
an automaker to design, build, and sell a new vehicle. So that means 
that even if every car maker decided to shift all of their production 
to battery-powered cars and trucks, it would be at least 20-25 years 
before we could conceivably see this ``green new future'' . . . and 
that's a best case.
    Do those numbers seem correct to you, and are you factoring them 
into your infrastructure planning?
    Answer. The Administration supports accelerating the conversion of 
our transportation system towards zero emissions. As you note, there 
will continue to be gas-powered vehicles on the road for many more 
years, and that's why the Department, working closely with the 
Environmental Protection Agency, announced in April 2022 new Corporate 
Average Fuel Economy standards of approximately 49 mpg for passenger 
cars and light trucks by model year 2026.
    The auto industry is also demonstrating its commitment to a 
voluntary shift to EV manufacturing and is in the process of rolling 
out new hybrid and EV models ranging from sub-compacts to pick-up 
trucks that are aimed at meeting a wide variety of financial, 
performance, and aesthetic needs.
    The Administration will support automakers in spurring domestic 
supply chains from raw materials to parts, retooling factories to 
compete globally, and transitioning American workers to make batteries 
and EVs. With the right combination of grant programs, innovation 
incentives, and job creation and training, we can not only ensure a 
cleaner future, but also more jobs, and a stronger, more competitive 
economy.

    Questions from Hon. Frederica S. Wilson to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, 
     Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

    Question 1. Mr. Secretary, I wholeheartedly agree with your 
statement that ``now is the time to finally address major inequities'' 
that have led to decades of disinvestment. For decades, my district has 
been fighting to complete a 9.5-mile rail project, known as the North 
Corridor, that will connect Florida's two largest counties, Miami-Dade 
and Broward, and facilitate access to economic opportunities. Last 
year, Miami Gardens Mayor, Oliver Gilbert, testified before the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee about this project, which 
is part of the county's SMART Plan. We have been working tirelessly to 
complete this project. This is by far the most consequential 
transportation project in South Florida. I'd appreciate your commitment 
to work with me and stakeholders to finally get the North Corridor 
project over the finish line. Do I have your commitment?
    Answer. Yes, you have my commitment that the Department will work 
with local stakeholders as they work to advance the project. We must 
also foster an inclusive process that allows our partners to move as 
expeditiously as possible in safely delivering infrastructure 
investments.

    Question 2. Mr. Secretary, as chair of the Florida Ports Caucus, 
I'm very concerned that ships are not sailing, which means people are 
not working. The majority of those impacted are independent business 
owners or individuals employed by small- to medium-sized businesses--
including travel agents, taxi drivers, port employees, baggage 
handlers, and longshoremen, as well as airline, hotel, and restaurant 
workers. Florida's ports, like PortMiami, are hemorrhaging jobs. With 
guidance uncertainty, cruise ships are moving to the Caribbean, causing 
genuine concern in my district about potential long-term job losses. We 
need guidelines on how to set sail safely and get our union workers 
back on the job. At a recent Senate hearing, CDC Director Rochelle 
Walensky stated that the Department of Transportation was involved in 
developing these guidelines. Do you have any insight for this committee 
on the updated guidelines to the Conditional Sailing Order to ensure 
that we can fully reopen our Seaports safely this summer to restore 
jobs?
    Answer. The Department appreciates the close working relationship 
that we have with the CDC, and its role during the pandemic. That 
collaboration included the opportunity for DOT team members to provide 
the industry's feedback directly to the CDC to help inform development 
of its Conditional Sail Order--which was phased out in early 2022--
Ultimately, Federal oversight of maritime safety is led by the USCG, 
and public health by the HHS. Nevertheless, DOT recognizes the vital 
benefits that travel and tourism, including the cruise industry, have 
on local economies and jobs. DOT will continue to work with our Federal 
partners and all other stakeholders to support the safe resumption of 
cruises.

    Question 3. Mr. Secretary, one of the most exciting projects in my 
district and the state of Florida is Brightline, the first privately 
owned and operated high-speed rail system in the U.S. in more than 100 
years. Later this year, the system will be up and running between Miami 
and West Palm Beach after shutting down because of COVID. In 2023, it 
will connect to Orlando and then later to Tampa. How do you intend to 
support projects like Brightline, which are implemented with private-
sector investment, through the environmental approval process?
    Answer. It is vitally important to partner with the private sector 
and leverage private sector dollars as we implement the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law. We must foster an inclusive process that allows our 
partners to move as expeditiously as possible in safely delivering 
infrastructure investments such as Brightline. In doing so, we also 
want to ensure we are good stewards of our environment and other 
important public resources.

    Question 4. Mr. Secretary, I was pleased to read that about your 
commitment to addressing transportation inequities in your testimony. 
Have you considered reinstating the Advisory Committee on 
Transportation Equity that was disbanded by former President Donald 
Trump and leveraging the capacity of historically black colleges and 
universities by establishing additional transportation research centers 
on those campuses?
    Answer. Equity is one of the Department's top priorities. On May 
16, 2022, DOT published the notice of the re-establishment of the 
Advisory Committee on Transportation Equity. Convening a group of DOT 
experts on equity in transportation is key to moving forward to embed 
equity throughout the Department and its programs and policies.

    Question 5. Mr. Secretary, Miami's Overtown neighborhood was once a 
thriving African-American community. Unfortunately, in the 1960s two 
new highways--I-95 and I-395--went up in the middle of Overtown. Some 
75 percent of the neighborhood's residents were displaced and, today, 
half the neighborhood's residents are living below the federal poverty 
line. What is your agency's plan to ensure that new infrastructure 
investment doesn't displace marginalized communities of color?
    Answer. Historic investments in transportation infrastructure, 
especially highway construction, cut too many Americans off from 
opportunity, dividing and demolishing communities, and perpetuating 
economic and racial injustices. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
includes a new program that will reconnect neighborhoods cut off by 
historic infrastructure projects and ensure new projects increase 
opportunity, advance racial equity and environmental justice, and 
promote affordable access. We also launched the Department-wide Equity 
Task Force, which will ensure that advancing equity and economic 
inclusion is part of all our programs and policies. We are committed to 
charting the right course for the Department in this important area.

    Question 6. Mr. Secretary, throughout the pandemic, transportation 
workers--bus drivers, flight attendants, port workers, and others--have 
faced physical, verbal, and health risks while helping to keep the 
economy moving. Even though vaccination rates across the country have 
been improving, there are still many workers still waiting for a 
vaccine despite a recommendation from the CDC that they be prioritized. 
How are you working to ensure that transportation workers are being 
vaccinated, provided adequate PPE, and protected while doing their 
jobs?
    Answer. The Administration has acted swiftly to combat COVID-19, 
including issuing numerous Executive Orders aimed at protecting 
travelers and transportation providers while also reducing the spread 
of COVID-19. The Department's support has included implementing CDC's 
mask mandates for passengers and workers, close interagency 
collaboration to facilitate convenient, accessible vaccination 
opportunities for transportation workers, and frequent stakeholder 
engagement aimed at spreading awareness, encouragement, and best 
practices for the transportation community to get vaccinated as quickly 
as possible. DOT has also acted to protect workers from unruly 
passengers, through both interagency cooperation and instituting of a 
zero-tolerance approach allowing FAA to take immediate action, 
including increased civil fines, against passengers who threaten, 
assault, intimidate, or otherwise interfere with air crews during 
flights. I am fully committed to continuing to leverage the 
Department's resources in these ways to respond to the COVID-19 
pandemic. The Department will continue to work with Congress, the 
Administration, and transportation stakeholders to ensure that to the 
country's essential workers, travelers, and goods are all able to move 
safely as we continue to respond to and recover from COVID-19.

    Question 7. Mr. Secretary, South Florida is on the frontline of 
climate change, especially when it comes to flooding. Many areas in my 
district, including Opa-Locka and Miami Shores, have been plagued by 
increased flooding, which damages homes and is a public health risk due 
to sewage leakage into the flood waters. In your testimony, you 
mentioned that we ``face an imperative to create resilient 
infrastructure.'' What is the administration's plan to prioritize 
empowering local communities to address flooding and other weather-
related challenges?
    Answer. Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas 
emissions, and must be a major part of solving the climate crisis. We 
have to be sure all aspects of our transportation system are resilient 
in a world that will see more powerful weather disasters. Every dollar 
we spend rebuilding infrastructure damaged by fires, floods, and other 
disasters is a dollar that we cannot spend improving our 
infrastructure.
    The Administration is working with communities across the country 
to assess vulnerabilities to flooding and weather-related risks and 
identify opportunities to incorporate resilience into our 
infrastructure systems. We must do what we can now to address existing 
challenges, as well as plan for a more resilient future. When it comes 
to flooding and our roadways, the Department is developing tools, 
providing technical assistance to States and metropolitan areas, 
funding pilot projects, and facilitating information exchange among 
local transportation agencies. The Department serves as a resource to 
transportation agencies and provides options on the many ways they can 
build resilience into the planning, construction, and operation of 
transportation projects. As we utilize the new resources provided 
through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we are continuing to partner 
with Federal, state, and local agencies on the shared goal of a 
transportation system that provides safe mobility under current and 
future climate conditions, supporting local economies and quality of 
life.

    Question 8. Mr. Secretary, there is a significant 
underrepresentation of minority-owned firms that struggle to compete 
for government contracts. I am working with your staff to identify 
resources to help a minority-owned aviation contractor in my district, 
Aeromarine. What are your plans to ensure that minority-owned entities 
receive a fair share of federal contracts?
    Answer. A focus on equity is essential to fulfilling our mission at 
the Department and to everything we do to serve the American people 
today, tomorrow, and for generations to come. DOT launched the 
Department-wide Equity Task Force, which will ensure that advancing 
equity and economic inclusion is part of all our programs and policies.
    As a central part of that effort, the Department is committed to 
helping small and minority-owned businesses compete for government 
contracts, which are increasing with the historic opportunities 
provided by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. DOT is continuing to 
provide the appropriate stewardship and oversight of the Disadvantaged 
Business Enterprise (DBE) program. The DBE program applies to Federally 
assisted contracts issued by recipients of DOT, including financial 
assistance from FHWA, FAA, and FTA. Moreover, the DBE program was 
established to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration 
of DOT-assisted contracts and to help remove barriers to participation 
of DBEs, including minority- and women-owned firms. The DBE program 
supports states in developing and providing training and technical 
assistance to DBE firms to improve their business practices, overcome 
barriers to success, and facilitate the firms' development into viable, 
self-sufficient organizations. The Department will continue to ensure 
that DBEs are aware of and benefit from the opportunities created by 
the DBE program.

    Question 9. Mr. Secretary, as chair of the Florida Ports Caucus, I 
am deeply concerned about COVID's devastating impact on port workers, 
including the longshoremen. Without direct funding from the federal 
government and the protracted closure of the cruise industry, our ports 
are hemorrhaging jobs and people are suffering. How are you working to 
provide relief to our nation's port workers?
    Answer. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) makes a historic 
and overdue investment in our roads, bridges, rail, airports, transit 
systems, and ports. The BIL will ensure that these investments produce 
good-quality jobs with strong labor standards, prevailing wages, and a 
free and fair choice to join a union and bargain collectively. These 
investments will advance racial equity by providing better jobs and 
better transportation options to underserved communities.
    The Department has been working throughout the pandemic with 
stakeholders including longshore unions, terminal operators, and port 
authorities to minimize the effects COVID-19 has had on port workers. 
In addition, the Administration released a Port Action Plan to address 
the ongoing supply chain issues at our nation's ports.
    Our port and intermodal infrastructure-related programs, such as 
the Port Infrastructure Development Program and Marine Highway Program 
create jobs and make our economy more resilient and sustainable. Since 
the establishment of grant programs that support ports of all kinds, 
ports in Florida have received more than $170 million for 10 grant 
awards to six ports within the State.

    Question 10. Mr. Secretary, sustainability is vitally important in 
our future transportation needs. Miami-Dade Mayor Daniella Levine Cava 
recently announced plans to fund a shore power hookup at the Port of 
Miami. Shore power enables ships to plug into the local electrical grid 
while in port instead of idling their engines, which drastically 
reduces air emissions. There have been numerous environmental concerns 
when it comes to shipping. How can the department best support the 
expansion of this technology to ports across the country?
    Answer. Global maritime-based trade, our U.S. flagged fleet, and 
our U.S. ports are critical to rebuilding and sustaining a flourishing 
American economy. They will also serve as important elements in the 
Administration's efforts to address transportation-related air quality 
and equity concerns. The BIL will provide additional funding in inland 
waterways, coastal ports, land ports of entry, and ferries, which are 
all essential to our nation's freight. This includes funding to help 
mitigate the cumulative impacts of air pollution on neighborhoods near 
ports, which are often communities of color. These investments will 
position the United States as a global leader in clean freight and 
aviation.

    Question 11. Mr. Secretary, Miami is one of the most congested 
metropolitan areas in the world and the congestion costs the region 
billions of dollars. Some constituents have told me that they spend up 
to four hours commuting to and from work daily. City of Miami Mayor, 
Francis Suarez, recently floated an idea to construct an underground 
tunnel to alleviate the congestion. How do you plan to support 
innovative solutions to congestion?
    Answer. These kinds of long commutes are unacceptable and have a 
significant impact on peoples' lives and families. This is why I feel 
so strongly about accelerating transformative investments in 
infrastructure that help people get where they need to go to 
efficiently and affordably, regardless of where they choose to live. 
The BIL will help modernize our infrastructure, investing in a safe, 
equitable, and sustainable transportation system. The BIL also contains 
dedicated funding to support ambitious projects that have tangible 
benefits to the regional or national economy but are too large or 
complex for existing funding programs. There are many innovative 
transportation solutions and technologies, and it is important to make 
sure that transportation innovation can work for all Americans.

    Question 12. Mr. Secretary, as a result of Miami's congestion and 
traffic, there have been many fatalities due to vehicle, bicycle, and 
pedestrian collisions. The deadliest stretch of I-95 runs through my 
district. Often, these incidents disproportionally occur in underserved 
communities that do not have the same level of safety features as 
wealthier neighborhoods. What is the department's plan to address these 
issues and to provide critical safety features to decrease road 
congestion and fatalities?
    Answer. Safety is the Department's top priority. We have a crisis 
on our nation's roadways, especially in underserved communities, and we 
are taking steps to reverse these trends. To address this crisis, the 
Department recently released its National Roadway Safety Strategy, 
which uses a ``Safe System Approach'' to help ensure safe roads, safe 
speeds, safe vehicles, and safe road users. This approach does not 
accept the current high toll of traffic crashes as inevitable, and 
instead sees it as preventable. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is an 
important part of the solution. It provides additional resources to 
support safety countermeasures, with particular attention devoted to 
underserved areas, and we will work with Federal-aid recipients to help 
them address their most pressing safety needs.

 Questions from Hon. Mark DeSaulnier to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary 
          of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

    Question 1. Our economy is evolving away from fossil fuels to 
cleaner, renewable energy, and the coronavirus pandemic jump-started 
that process. COVID-19 travel restrictions and far fewer commuters 
during the pandemic have caused a major decrease in fossil fuel 
consumption--even the industry has been forced to consider diversifying 
its business model. We have seen these effects in Contra Costa County, 
California, home to four fossil fuel refineries. Because of this 
evolution away from fossil fuels, I have been working on an energy 
transition initiative to ensure America's fossil fuel workforce is not 
left behind. What is the Secretary's position on the transition away 
from fossil fuels and, in his view, how do we protect these workers?
    Answer. The historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) is helping 
provide high quality transportation jobs here in America. We need 
millions of construction, manufacturing, engineering, and skilled-
trades workers to build a new American infrastructure and clean energy 
economy. These jobs will create opportunities for young people and for 
older workers shifting to new professions, and for people from all 
backgrounds and communities.

    Question 2. Commuter and high-speed rail can help drastically 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and efficiently connect people to jobs, 
health care, and other essential services. Mega-commutes have become 
common place across the U.S. and particularly in the Bay Area. Building 
out efficient commuter and high-speed rail and coordinating public 
transportation services within regions is key to a world-class, 
interconnected rail network. In addition, we must ensure that high-
speed rail is done right by constructing the rail in corridors where we 
need it most. What are the Secretary's thoughts on how we build a 
world-class rail network that focuses on regional coordination? In 
addition, how do we ensure proper project management of these mega-rail 
projects so they are built in optimal areas?
    Answer. Successful economies demand safe, efficient and effective 
transportation systems. For more than 50 years, our government invested 
hundreds of billions of dollars in the development of the Interstate 
highway and aviation systems, but minimal amounts in rail. Many other 
countries have shown us that if passenger rail is done well, it can 
create tremendous transportation, economic, environmental, and safety 
benefits.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided $66 billion in advanced 
appropriations and authorizes an additional $36 billion in funding to 
the Federal Railroad Administration to support the restoration, 
development, and expansion of passenger rail service across the 
country. The newly created Corridor Identification and Development 
program will provide states, communities and other stakeholders a 
formal process that will help facilitate the development of intercity 
passenger rail corridors. This will jumpstart the rail investments our 
nation needs to expand on current successes and seed further growth in 
American rail.

Questions from Hon. Salud O. Carbajal to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary 
          of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

    Question 1. International shipping is a massive global polluter--
largely as a result of the carbon intensive nature of ships' fossil 
fueled engines. Nearly 40% of Americans live within 3 miles of a port. 
The majority of America's port communities are working class and lower 
income communities of color that have long demanded life-saving policy 
interventions to end ship pollution.
    After two centuries of reliance on fossil fuels, the shipping 
industry is pursuing a rapid transition to low/zero emission 
propulsion--centered on green, hydrogen-based fuels, fuel cell 
technologies, and battery power.
    How is the Department of Transportation preparing America's ports 
for a new era of low/zero-emission shipping, and what support do you 
need from Congress towards these ends?
    Answer. Our U.S. ports are critical to a strong American economy. 
We must address the air pollution in and around our port communities 
that threatens the health and well-being of nearby residents. The 
confluence of transportation modes at these points requires a sustained 
effort to support port, terminal and vessel energy efficiency and 
reduce emissions. It also requires expanded multi-modal approaches to 
reduce carbon emissions from the maritime sector and support 
alternative energy technologies and fuels.
    In order to reach our national goals, we must tackle the emissions 
and increase energy efficiency within the domestic and global maritime 
industries. In addition, we are working with our colleagues across the 
federal government to advance these maritime fuel and vessel 
technologies. There are exciting developments in both the public and 
private sectors that demonstrate it will be possible for us to 
productively work to achieve these goals. The Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law is providing additional funding to address the needs of coastal 
ports, inland waterways land ports of entry, and ferries, to ensure we 
maintain our competitive edge, modernize systems that have suffered 
decades of disinvestment, and do so in a way that protects the 
surrounding communities.

    Question 2. The technology for producing hydrogen is proven. The 
problem is that hydrogen production and equipment is estimated to be 
30-50% more costly than infrastructure used to produce LNG. Supporting 
programs that accelerate hydrogen production will add U.S. jobs and 
create equivalent private capital investment. I would appreciate 
hearing your views on hydrogen production and how your department can 
play a role to accelerate hydrogen production and implementation.
    Answer. Renewable hydrogen production will play a key role in 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. There 
are many exciting opportunities in this area. Announced at President 
Biden's Leaders Summit on Climate, the Administration's 2030 greenhouse 
gas pollution reduction target specifically calls for the 
prioritization of clean hydrogen and recognizes the need to create good 
paying jobs through expanded clean hydrogen production, delivery, 
storage, and end use.
    Addressing maritime-related emission reductions and energy 
efficiency challenges are a DOT priority. The Maritime Administration 
has been working closely with the Department of Energy to evaluate 
hydrogen applications in the maritime sector. For example, MARAD's 
Maritime Environmental and Technical Assistance (META) Program has led 
efforts looking at feasibility of fuel cell applications for both 
vessels and shore-based equipment.
    Hydrogen is one of many alternative fuel or energy sources that may 
assist in moving the sector towards emissions reduction and ultimately 
decarbonization. The Department is looking at how existing programs 
could be used to further support investments in energy-related 
facilities at or near ports.

 Questions from Hon. Greg Stanton to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of 
           Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

    Question 1. As we craft infrastructure legislation, I have been 
working to include polices that increase planning to ensure we have 
sustainable access to construction materials. Stone, sand, and gravel 
are key materials needed to build infrastructure, and they are 
imperative to expanding our highways, building new transit networks, 
electric vehicle stations and any public works project. My state of 
Arizona has taken the lead in executing smart planning that ensures 
communities have access to aggregates which is a key factor in reducing 
emissions, lessening environmental impacts, and extending taxpayer 
dollars as we build infrastructure.
    Will you commit to working with me on implementing better federal 
planning, engaging with local governments, tribes, and stakeholders, to 
ensure we have more sustainable access to construction materials?
    Answer. I will commit to working with you and other stakeholders to 
ensure that we have more access to sustainable construction materials. 
FHWA is doing considerable work to improve the sustainability of 
highway infrastructure materials through research at the Turner-
Fairbank Highway Research Center and the Sustainable Pavements Program.

    Question 2. The City of Phoenix ranks third in the nation for 
roadway fatalities. The city is working to reverse this alarming trend, 
but it often lacks the resources to undertake necessary safety 
projects. Efforts by cities to secure federal funds for safety projects 
has been challenging since many states do not suballocate funds from 
the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) to the local level to 
implement traffic safety projects.
    What options are available to direct more federal resources to 
support cities working to address traffic-related injuries and 
fatalities?
    Answer. We must address the crisis on our nation's roadways. Safety 
will always remain the number one priority of the Department and we 
recently released our National Roadway Safety Strategy to help 
communities ensure safe roads, safe speeds, safe vehicles, and safe 
road users. This safe system approach engages all stakeholders and is 
similar to the airline industry's embrace of safety management systems 
that resulted in the dramatic decline in air fatalities in the 1990s.
    We recognize that there is no one-size-fits-all approach for 
America's communities when it comes to safe street design and are 
providing local communities with the assistance to implement safety 
practices, while providing the flexibility to adjust to local 
conditions.
    Cities are eligible applicants under the INFRA and RAISE 
discretionary grant programs, for which safety-related projects are 
eligible. As an example, the City of Phoenix was selected for a BUILD 
20 grant for the 35th Avenue Safety Corridor project. The Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law (BIL) funding is helping improve road safety for all 
users, including increases to existing safety programs and a new Safe 
Streets for All program to reduce crashes and fatalities, especially 
for cyclists and pedestrians.
    Working through MPOs and with States, cities can also identify 
roadways as Critical Urban Freight Corridors to gain eligibility for 
the National Highway Freight Program funding, which is apportioned to 
States for a wide range of projects. Cities may also use federal 
planning (PL) funds sub-allocated to their metropolitan planning 
organization (MPO) for safety programs.

    Question 3. The current COVID pandemic has generated new emphasis 
on frequent cleanings, wearing masks, and physical distancing.
    a.  Will cleaning, distancing, and other standards be established 
by the DOT/FAA for airports?
    b.  If so, will supporting grant funds be developed, similar to the 
roll-out of new security infrastructure funding following 9/11?
    Answer to a. & b. FAA has not established specific spatial 
standards for airports, nor does the FAA have regulatory authority over 
cleaning protocols. However, the FAA has imposed a grant condition that 
airports receiving Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental 
Appropriations Act (CRRSA) funds implement CDC and TSA requirements 
when in effect.
    The Department has also led interagency work in close coordination 
with the Departments of Health and Human Services and Homeland Security 
and other federal partners to provide guidance and recommendations to 
airports and airlines on myriad public health risk reductions measures, 
including cleaning protocols.
    All eligible airport sponsors receiving COVID-relief airport grants 
can use these funds to clean, sanitize, and otherwise operate its 
airports. These grant funds are also available to fund terminal 
projects that combat the spread of pathogens. As such, airports can use 
these funds to increase social distancing in eligible areas and other 
projects to combat disease, such as create spaces for health screening, 
temporary isolation, or upgrade ventilation systems.

    Question 4. Airports sell private activity bonds to finance 
airports. If the purchaser of those bonds must pay a higher interest 
rate on their earnings, they want a greater interest rate on the bonds. 
A greater interest rate means the airport must pay more on the bond at 
maturity which costs money. If the alternative minimum tax on these 
bonds was eliminated, airports could sell bonds (borrow) more cheaply 
and stretch their limited dollars.
    Does the Administration support eliminating the alternative minimum 
tax on private activity bond interest proceeds?
    Answer. Currently, DOT's Private Activity Bond (PAB) authority does 
not extend to airports. PABs do offer an appealing, lower cost means of 
financing projects, while at the same time encouraging private sector 
participation, and we look forward to working with Congress to ensure 
communities have access to a range of low-cost infrastructure 
financing.

    Question 5. I have been concerned that very few tribal nations have 
been successful in securing BUILD grants. Many tribal governments feel 
that they are being left out of the BUILD grant program even though 
their reservations are important components to the local, state, and 
regional economies and communities. For 2018 awards, 59 tribal 
applications were submitted, but only two received awards. In 2019, 13 
tribal applications were submitted and only one received an award. And 
in 2020, two tribal projects received an award.
    Tribal reservations often encompass tribal, interstate, state, 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, and county roads that also serve non-tribal 
communities. Tribal governments have expressed the need to widen 
highways and develop off-ramps and interchanges to better access their 
lands. In some instances, this lack of infrastructure is significantly 
hindering tribal economic development. This is the case even in places 
where the tribal governments have become one of the largest employers 
in the region, sometimes employing several thousand non-tribal 
citizens. In addition, these types of large-scale, multi-jurisdictional 
projects are essential to provide safe travel on, and through, tribal 
lands. According to the CDC, motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause 
of death for American Indians and Alaska Natives aged 1 to 44, with 
Arizona listed as one of the top five states for motor-vehicle related 
deaths, along with Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana.
    While tribal governments have been encouraged to increase their 
coordination with the local municipalities and state governments in 
order to submit grant applications that clearly show a regional impact 
with support from multiple jurisdictions, it is important for the 
Department to recognize the inherent challenges and limitations tribal 
nations have in submitting competitive applications.
    a.  What steps will the Department take to better assist tribal 
nations in submitting competitive applications for BUILD grants?
    b.  Would the Department support a tribal set-aside within the 
BUILD program to provide a more level playing field for tribal nations 
to compete for these funds?
    Answer to a. & b. The Rebuilding American Infrastructure with 
Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) grant program (formerly BUILD grants) 
provides eligibility to a diverse array of public entities, including 
Tribal governments. To provide outreach to eligible applicants, DOT 
offered a webinar on how to apply for RAISE specifically for Tribal and 
rural applicants to directly answer questions about the application and 
evaluation process. Additionally, the NOFOs for DOT's Infrastructure 
for Rebuilding America (INFRA) and RAISE programs included for the 
first time criteria focused on addressing inequity. DOT also added a 
new webinar focused on applying to RAISE planning grants, which can 
address critical planning gaps for tribal communities. Both the Office 
of Tribal Affairs and ROUTES are actively promoting these webinars to 
their partners.
    Under the RAISE grant program, DOT maintains its statutory 
responsibility to ensure an equitable geographic distribution of funds, 
an appropriate balance in addressing the needs of urban and rural 
areas, including Tribal areas, and the investment in a variety of 
transportation modes.

    Question 6. In the final rule for the Tribal Transportation Self-
Governance Program issued last year, the Department declined to 
establish an Office of Self-Governance and a Self-Governance Advisory 
Committee. H.R. 2, the Moving Forward Act would establish an Assistant 
Secretary for Tribal Government Affairs and an Office of Tribal 
Government Affairs at the Department of Transportation to oversee 
administration of the Tribal Transportation Self Governance Program.
    a.  Does the Department support the establishment of an Office of 
Tribal Government Affairs to administer the Tribal Transportation Self-
Governance Program and coordinate the Department efforts to provide 
outreach to underserved Tribal communities to address transportation 
safety challenges and transportation barriers faced by Tribes to access 
markets and economic opportunities?
    Answer. The Department fully supports any legislative action to 
advance the principles of Self-Determination and Self-Governance for 
Indian Tribes in the Department's programs and assist Tribes in meeting 
transportation safety challenges and removing transportation barriers 
to economic opportunities. Currently, the Tribal Transportation Self-
Governance Program is administered within the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Governmental Affairs and is headed by Arlando Teller, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tribal Affairs with assistance from a 
dedicated career team. In addition, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
(BIL) includes the creation of an Office of Tribal Government Affairs 
and requires the appointment of an Assistant Secretary of Tribal 
Government Affairs.

    b.  What obstacles prevent the Department from establishing a Self-
Governance Advisory Committee, similar to those at the Department of 
the Interior and the Department of Health, to assist the Department 
implement the many USDOT programs benefitting Tribes?
    c.  Does the Department view such a committee as saving federal 
funds in the long term by highlighting best practices among Tribes, 
troubleshooting issues early, and ensuring that Tribes remain good 
stewards of taxpayer funds?
    Answer to b. & c. Congress, by enacting Section 1121 of the FAST 
Act--which authorized the TTSGP--did not require the creation of a 
Self-Governance Advisory Committee for the TTSGP. The Department 
acknowledges that advisory committees can facilitate the development of 
administrative, oversight, and cost saving ideas and approaches that 
could more effectively carry out the goals and objectives of a Federal 
program.

    Question 7. Communities advancing major federal infrastructure 
projects have encountered challenges in working with the railroads when 
those the projects intersect with the freight rail network. While there 
is a need to mitigate the impact of federal infrastructure projects on 
the railroad's operations, there have been times when the cost and 
scale of the mitigation and economic compensation being sought by the 
railroads are disproportionate to the impact on the railroad's 
operation and does not consider the benefits the railroad may accrue 
from the project. In some cases, the mitigation is simply cost 
prohibitive to the local community, jeopardizing the viability of the 
entire infrastructure project.
    What role can USDOT/FRA play in assisting communities and the 
railroads reach agreement on appropriate mitigation measures on federal 
infrastructure projects that impact the freight rail network and the 
operations of a railroad to keep these projects viable?
    Answer. It is vital that we help communities find consensus with 
railroads on projects that have the potential to deliver broad-based 
benefits. Project sponsors must coordinate closely with railroads 
throughout the planning and development process, as in many cases the 
infrastructure asset being improved, or altered in some way, is owned 
by the railroad. This coordination is essential to ensuring that the 
objectives of the Federal investment are met with minimal disruption, 
but also serves to highlight the benefits that the asset owner will 
realize upon completion. In such cases, FRA encourages project sponsors 
to engage railroads and any other stakeholders early in the project 
development process, which we have seen result in a more collaborative 
relationship that helps foster beneficial project outcomes for the 
community and the railroad.

Questions from Hon. Sharice Davids to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of 
           Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

    Question 1. I, along with my colleague aviation subcommittee 
ranking member Garret Graves, have introduced legislation to create a 
working group at DOT to ensure engagement and leadership in the 
advanced air mobility space and look forward to working with you and 
the Administration should it pass. I would appreciate your thoughts on 
integrating advanced air mobility concepts into the transportation and 
mobility network and would ask how you are prioritizing this work 
within the Department?
    Answer. The first passenger-carrying Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) 
aircraft are currently working their way through FAA certification. The 
FAA has been consistently collaborating with NASA to develop an AAM 
Concept of Operations, and participating in demonstration projects that 
are making clear how AAM could fundamentally change the air 
transportation system as we know it. There is still a lot we need to 
learn to prepare for this, and not all of it involves the safety of the 
aircraft itself.
    The first AAM operations are projected to be piloted, use 
traditional air traffic management and travel along established 
helicopter routes. That will quickly ramp up to require addressing 
complex navigation systems, flight coordination, passenger security 
questions, autonomous operation questions, standards for landing 
platforms, and answering who decides where they are placed, how they 
are funded and operated, and how they accommodate multiple or a single 
operator's aircraft. We are actively working with intergovernmental 
partners, industry, and local planners to better understand this 
technology and its implications. DOT will commit to sharing our 
progress in this field as it develops.

    Question 2. Secretary Buttigieg, I share your view that we face a 
once-in-a-generation opportunity to make long-overdue investments in 
our nation's transportation system. As part of opportunity, there is an 
urgent need to modernize our nation's aging safety critical aviation 
infrastructure. It has been more than 40 years since our country made a 
significant investment in these systems, and now much of that equipment 
is well beyond its intended service life. Replacing and modernizing 
this infrastructure will create U.S. jobs, save the FAA millions of 
dollars annually, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and improve safety.
    As the Administration constructs its infrastructure proposal, will 
you consider the critical need to modernize our ground-based aviation 
infrastructure as priorities for funding and policy reforms?
    Answer. The FY 2023 Discretionary Budget fully supports the FAA's 
operational needs, while ensuring we can continue to invest in safety 
and innovation. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides $25 billion 
to improve airports and National Airspace System assets--which combined 
with investments across modes will help modernize our transportation 
system.
    The FY 2023 Discretionary Budget also supports safety by making 
necessary investments in air traffic control facilities. These 
facilities are in many cases decades old and in need of modernization 
and replacement to ensure safe and efficient operations.

    Question 3. Hyperloop is an exciting new mode of transportation 
that is 100 percent electric with zero direct carbon emissions. With 
the Biden Administration's focus on climate change and the role the 
Department of Transportation will play in advancing our nation's 
climate policy, what steps do you plan to take to help develop new 
modes of transportation that support these efforts, like hyperloop? How 
will the Biden-Harris Administration's Build Back Better infrastructure 
plan support the development of hyperloop technology?
    Answer. There are many innovations taking place in transportation 
technology, and it's important that the Department ensures that new 
technologies can work for all Americans, while always prioritizing 
safety. The Department is a partner for innovators, travelers, and 
communities alike. These innovative projects now have more funding 
opportunities available through BIL programs, such as eligibilities for 
research and development activities through FRA's expanded Consolidated 
Rail Infrastructure Safety and Improvements (CRISI) grant program.

 Questions from Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, 
     Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

    Question 1. Secretary Buttigieg, In your February 25 joint 
statement with Transport Canada on the nexus between transportation and 
climate change, you stated, ``We intend to advance the development and 
deployment of high integrity sustainable aviation fuels.'' The 
development of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) has made great strides, 
and the big hurdle now for SAF is producing SAF in quantities that will 
have a significant impact in reducing carbon levels in the hard to 
decarbonize aviation sector. SAF is considered the most cost effective, 
reliable and ready to deploy option for decarbonizing aviation. Fred 
Smith, the Chairman of Fed Ex, in testimony last week, indicated 
current efforts to replace carbon-based jet fuels are limited because 
of costs associated with sustainable aircraft fuels.
    a.  Do you believe federal government incentives like a SAF 
blender's tax credit (BTC) is a solution to scale up the industry?
    b.  Would the blenders tax credit proposal of $1.50/gal. or more 
for sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) that achieve a 50% reduction in 
GHG, bring the cost of SAF close to parity with regular jet fuel?
    Answer to a. & b. Sustainable aviation fuels offer the best ongoing 
opportunity to reduce emissions from the aviation sector, given the 
limitations and energy density of battery technology today for aviation 
uses. Adequately addressing the cost disparity of the renewable fuels 
market and the existing fossil fuel supply of aviation fuel will be 
critical to achieving wide-spread production and deployment, spurring 
job creation in agriculture, refining, construction and logistics 
throughout the nation, and to meeting U.S. aviation climate 
commitments, including those made at the International Civil Aviation 
Organization and the Paris Agreement. In September 2021, several 
Federal agencies, including DOT, DOE and USDA, came together to support 
the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Grand Challenge, and this collaboration 
will jointly leverage existing authorities and resources to promote 
sustainable fuel production.

    Question 2. In the near future, I will be introducing legislation 
that includes provisions that will improve mobility, reduce congestion, 
and lower vehicle emissions across the U.S. through the use of 
transportation demand management (TDM)--all priorities if we want a 
practical approach to federal surface transportation policy while also 
ensuring equity and sustainability. The MORE through TDM Act will bring 
TDM to state and local planning decisions while also providing an 
important new funding program that will support impactful TDM 
strategies like commuter benefits programs (like you implemented while 
Mayor) and projects that improve the equitable flow of people and goods 
within the existing national highway network.
    a.  How might the US DOT work to expand the utilization of 
transportation demand management (TDM) through its existing 
authorities?
    Answer. Certainly, demand management can be an important component 
of a transportation program in congested areas. Existing authorities, 
such as those related to high-occupancy vehicle lanes (23 U.S.C. 166) 
and value pricing (Act (ISTEA) Sec.  1012(b), as amended) provide 
pathways to a community's congestion-related demand management 
approaches. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 
Program (23 U.S.C. 149) provides funds that support TDM programs and 
projects. Discretionary grant programs may provide additional avenues 
for implementing demand management.

    b.  Is TDM a policy area where we could work together to craft 
lower cost policy solutions that have real impacts on reducing 
greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions while bringing efficiencies that lower 
congestion levels to our national transportation system?
    Answer. FHWA developed a new feature for its Freight Mobility 
Trends Analysis Tool to help users see the estimated emissions on the 
Nation's highways. This enhancement--which features information on the 
time and cost of bottlenecks across the nation--is available to the 
public. This information can be useful to States and other public-
sector agencies as they look at multimodal solutions to congestion and 
GHG emissions reduction.

    c.  As the country begins to emerge from the pandemic, how might US 
DOT embrace transportation demand management strategies to ensure 
commuters have viable transportation options available to them?
    Answer. Investments in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) are 
helping provide more options for people to get where they need to go. 
At the Department, we are raising awareness of opportunities for 
communities to pursue a wide range of strategies that best address the 
challenges facing their residents.

    Question 3. I have heard concerns from small business engineering 
companies in my district about a problematic regulatory requirement 
that may inhibit their ability to recover economically. Apparently 
firms that received PPP loans and qualify for loan forgiveness must 
credit back to the government some or all of that loan, under an 
interpretation of federal acquisition rules. These small businesses are 
worried that State DOTs and local transit agencies will apply this 
credit to reduce their billing rates, essentially eliminating the 
benefit of the loan and in some cases leaving them worse off.
    I encourage the Department of Transportation to develop 
implementation guidance that limits the scope and impact of this rule 
as much as possible, and to work with the affected industries to 
provide feedback to the department. Will the Department of 
Transportation commit to working to help ensure small businesses can 
fully utilize their PPP loans?
    Answer. The Department worked with small businesses to help them 
fully utilize their PPP loans while ensuring that contractors are not 
charging the Federal government for services that were previously paid 
for by forgiven PPP loans. FHWA worked carefully to provide guidance, 
which was released on March 24, 2021, that clarifies treatment of 
Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans received by consultants 
providing architectural and engineering (A&E) services under Federal-
aid or Federal lands highway program funded contracts. FHWA's guidance 
limits the application of the credit to Federal-aid highway program 
funded contracts to amounts necessary to ensure that the company does 
not receive a windfall by receiving loan forgiveness from the Small 
Business Administration and subsequently being reimbursed by FHWA, 
which would be contrary to governmentwide requirements.
    The fundamental issue at hand was ensuring that contractors are not 
able to ``double dip'' by receiving forgiven PPP loans while at the 
same time charging government for those same services. For this reason, 
FHWA's guidance limits the amount of credit recovery to only the potion 
of forgiven loan proceeds which are allocable to the Federal-aid 
highway program funded contract and nothing more. FHWA will continue to 
actively participate in regular meetings with representatives of State 
DOTs, the American Council of Engineering Companies, and other members 
of the engineering community to address questions or concerns on 
Federal guidance to ensure consistent implementation.

    Question 4. Autonomous vehicles are responsible for at least one 
crash a day on average. After Congress mandated that the DOT produce a 
plan to proactively regulate this technology, the previous 
administration proposed a plan to cheerlead the industry, rather than 
address any of the safety, security, or labor concerns created by this 
technology. This has led to a free-for-all across the country with 
thousands of these unregulated vehicles on our streets.
    How do you plan to bring autonomous vehicles back into compliance 
with our existing regulations and prevent widespread job loss in the 
transportation industry as this technology is deployed?
    Answer. The Department is committed to supporting the safe 
development, testing and deployment of automated vehicle (AV) 
technology in a way that reflects our priorities, including safety, 
equity and fostering good-paying jobs. All vehicles for public sale 
must be in compliance with existing National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) regulations and test protocols; and are subject 
to NHTSA defect and recall authorities. NHTSA, with our National 
Transportation Safety Board partners, is actively investigating crashes 
involving vehicles that claim to be ``self-driving.''
    Because these new driving automation technologies present unique 
risks, NHTSA is evaluating whether the manufacturers of these vehicles 
(including manufacturers of prototype vehicles and equipment) are 
meeting their statutory obligations to ensure that their vehicles and 
equipment are free of defects that pose an unreasonable risk to motor 
vehicle safety. To enable timely notification of crashes and incidents 
that happen on public roads, NHTSA issued a Standing General Order that 
requires manufacturers and operators of Automated Driving Systems (ADS) 
and SAE Level 2 Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) equipped 
vehicles to report crashes to the agency. This action enables NHTSA to 
fulfill its mission of keeping Americans safe on the roadways and 
providing transparency to the public, even as the technology deployed 
on the nation's roads continues to evolve.
    The Department also recently released innovation principles and 
continues to move forward on standing up and staffing the Highly 
Automated Systems Safety Center of Excellence, to provide a core 
expertise to support assessment of automation applications across all 
modes of transportation, that will help us explore key questions such 
as labor, safety, and environmental impacts. In addition, the 
Department invests in the future of transportation through its 
University Transportation Centers Program, which awards and administers 
grants to consortia of colleges and universities across the United 
States. The UTC Program advances the state-of-the-art in transportation 
research and technology and develops the next generation of 
transportation professionals.

Questions from Hon. Jake Auchincloss to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary 
          of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

    Question 1. Mr. Secretary, people in my district, and in the 
Commonwealth of MA, whose livelihoods depend on the travel and tourism 
industry have been hit among the hardest financially by the pandemic. 
Following a devastating year for these families, thanks to innovation 
in vaccine development, we are finally able to begin taking postponed 
visits with family and friends in the US and abroad, and planning 
delayed vacations.
    What this means for my constituents is plain and simple--when 
planes are flying, airlines are supporting jobs. But as we look to a 
hopeful future filled with opportunities for growth and innovation in 
aviation, we need to ensure that all US airlines have equal access to 
space--or slots--at airports around the world. Unfortunately, this is 
not always the case. Recently, when a new entrant US airline applied to 
serve London Heathrow Airport, they were denied access by UK 
authorities. In fact, the available slots went to an airline that 
essentially hoarded them. So now the slots remain unused, not able to 
support any jobs in my district or any other for that matter.
    To avoid this scenario in the future, and to support innovation and 
job growth in the airline industry, can I count on you to work with 
your counterparts at the UK's Competition and Markets Authority--and 
other competition authorities--to address access for US carriers to 
Heathrow and other airports worldwide?
    Answer. The Department maintains close working relationships with 
our counterparts in foreign jurisdictions, including both aeronautical 
authorities and also competition authorities that implement airport 
access remedies such as the ones you reference in the U.S.-London 
market. The Department will continue to work closely with our foreign 
partners to ensure U.S. carrier services are properly considered, that 
new entrant services are recognized as critical to enhancing 
competition, and that critical infrastructure is made available on non-
discriminatory terms, consistent with international best practice as 
well as foreign partners' obligation to the United States under 
relevant international agreements.

    Question 2. Mr. Secretary, I have heard concerns from small 
business engineering companies in my district about a problematic 
regulatory requirement that may inhibit their ability to recover 
economically. Apparently small business contractors that received PPP 
loans and qualify for loan forgiveness must credit back to the 
government some or all of that loan, under an interpretation of federal 
acquisition rules. These small businesses, including many minority-
owned and women-owned DBEs, are worried that State DOTs and local 
transit agencies will apply this credit to reduce their billing rates, 
essentially eliminating the benefit of the loan and in some cases 
leaving them worse off.
    This is time sensitive, as State DOTs are crafting their own 
policies and procedures that could have harmful consequences for 
businesses that needed this assistance the most.
    I understand the Department of Transportation has published 
implementation guidance in recent days. Will you commit to work with 
the affected stakeholders to limit the scope and impact of this credit 
policy as much as possible and ensure fair outcomes for our small 
business contractors?
    Answer. The Department worked with small businesses to help them 
fully utilize their PPP loans while ensuring that contractors are not 
charging the Federal government for services that were previously paid 
for by forgiven PPP loans. FHWA worked carefully to provide guidance, 
which was released on March 24, 2021, that clarifies treatment of 
Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans received by consultants 
providing architectural and engineering (A&E) services under Federal-
aid or Federal lands highway program funded contracts. FHWA's guidance 
limits the application of the credit to Federal-aid highway program 
funded contracts to amounts necessary to ensure that the company does 
not receive a windfall by receiving loan forgiveness from the Small 
Business Administration and subsequently being reimbursed by FHWA, 
which would be contrary to governmentwide requirements.
    The fundamental issue at hand was ensuring that contractors are not 
able to ``double dip'' by receiving forgiven PPP loans while at the 
same time charging the government for those same services. For this 
reason, FHWA's guidance limits the amount of credit recovery to only 
the portion of forgiven loan proceeds which are allocable to the 
Federal-aid highway program funded contract and nothing more. FHWA will 
continue to actively participate in regular meetings with 
representatives of State DOTs, the American Council of Engineering 
Companies, and other members of the engineering community to address 
questions or concerns on Federal guidance to ensure consistent 
implementation.

Questions from Hon. Carolyn Bourdeaux to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary 
          of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

    Question 1. What will USDOT do to coordinate planning for 
transitioning the power grid to prepare it for the increased use that 
will come with the electrification of transportation?
    Answer. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) includes $65 
billion to support clean energy transmission and grid modernization. It 
will upgrade our power infrastructure, by building thousands of miles 
of new, resilient transmission lines to facilitate the expansion of 
renewables and clean energy, while lowering costs. And it will fund new 
programs to support the development, demonstration, and deployment of 
cutting-edge clean energy technologies to accelerate our transition to 
a zero-emission economy. While our Federal partners at the Department 
of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will lead this 
effort, DOT is helping prepare for the further electrification of 
transportation. Preparing for this energy future is vital to our 
economy, and will require a coordinated effort among all public and 
private sector stakeholders in the electric power generation, 
transmission, and distribution sector.

    Question 2. How will USDOT help entities transition their bus and/
or truck fleets to electric or alternative fuels including propane and 
methane gas?
    Answer. FTA's Low or No Emissions competitive grant program 
provides funding to support the transition to low and no emission 
vehicles, and the BIL provides $5.6 billion over five years. In 
addition, low and no emission vehicles are an eligible expense under 
FTA's Buses and Bus Facilities formula and competitive programs.
    The Federal Highway Administration is also implementing new 
programs under the BIL to support the development of charging 
facilities and corridors.

    Question 3. It is more expensive to build transit infrastructure in 
US than in other countries, what is USDOT doing to look into these cost 
issues and make sure that we use our transit dollars wisely?
    Answer. DOT is committed to safeguarding Federal tax dollars and is 
aware that a complex mix of local and national economic factors have 
driven up the cost of major infrastructure projects in the United 
States. In 2020, FTA entered into a cooperative agreement with the Eno 
Center for Transportation to conduct research into the growing cost of 
transit projects, which will utilize comparisons with Western European 
countries and Canada, as well as historical trends in transit project 
delivery. This research is now available (https://
projectdelivery.enotrans.org/) and will help inform FTA's continued 
work in this area.

                              [all]