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

IMPLEMENTING THE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND JOBS ACT

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

(117-55)

REMOTE HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

JULY 19, 2022

__________

Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

[GRAPHIC(S) 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
50-135 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

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

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........................................... 3
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement............................. 93

WITNESSES

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

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Article entitled, ``Every Automaker's EV Plans Through 2035 and
Beyond,'' by Jim Motavalli, Forbes.com, Updated October 4,
2021, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Mark DeSaulnier......... 75
Letter of July 13, 2022, to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of
Transportation, and Hon. Amit Bose, Administrator of the
Federal Railroad Administration, from Hon. Brian K.
Fitzpatrick, Member of Congress, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Brian K. Fitzpatrick...................................... 87
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio:
Letter of July 18, 2022, to Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, Chair, and
Hon. Sam Graves, Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, from Catherine Chase,
President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety........... 93
Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers......... 99

APPENDIX

Questions to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation,
U.S. Department of Transportation, from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................ 105
Hon. Sam Graves.............................................. 106
Hon. Steve Cohen............................................. 108
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford............................... 109
Hon. John Garamendi.......................................... 109
Hon. Rodney Davis............................................ 111
Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr........................... 112
Hon. David Rouzer............................................ 115
Hon. Dina Titus.............................................. 116
Hon. Tim Burchett............................................ 117
Hon. Jared Huffman........................................... 119
Hon. Brian J. Mast........................................... 119
Hon. Frederica S. Wilson..................................... 121
Hon. Mark DeSaulnier......................................... 121
Hon. Salud O. Carbajal....................................... 123
Hon. Sharice Davids.......................................... 123
Hon. Nikema Williams......................................... 125
Hon. Troy A. Carter.......................................... 125

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

July 15, 2022

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

TO: LMembers, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure
FROM: LStaff, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure
RE: LFull Committee Hearing on ``Implementing the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act''
_______________________________________________________________________

PURPOSE

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will
meet on Tuesday, July 19, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. EDT in 2167
Rayburn House Office Building and virtually via Zoom for a
hearing titled ``Implementing the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act.'' The hearing will provide an opportunity for Members
of the Committee to discuss the Administration's actions to
date in implementing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA; P.L. 117-58). The Committee will hear testimony from the
Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation
(DOT).

BACKGROUND

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pursuant to House Rule X (1)(r), the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure (Committee) 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); and
LOffice of the Secretary (OST).

On December 15, 2020, President Biden nominated Pete
Buttigieg to be the 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 AND JOBS ACT

Last November, Congress enacted the bipartisan
infrastructure framework, passed as the Senate Amendment to
H.R. 3684, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This
legislation provided billions of dollars to sustain and
modernize our highway, transit, rail, airport, port, and
wastewater infrastructure. These investments will help
construct, repair, and replace airports, roads, bridges,
transit systems, railroads, and pipelines; improve safety;
reduce carbon pollution from the transportation sector; reduce
congestion at ports; and improve air and water quality.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As described in Views and Estimates of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure for Fiscal Year 2023, p 1. https://
transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/FY23%20Views
%20and%20Estimates_Final.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in the fiscal year 2023 Views and Estimates
adopted by the committee on April 28, 2022: ``[o]versight of
responsible implementation of the IIJA is a top priority for
the committee this year as we work to ensure that Americans all
over the country, rural and urban alike, proportionally share
in the benefits from these historic investments.'' \2\ This
hearing is an IIJA oversight activity of the committee and
represents an opportunity for the committee to ensure that the
IIJA is responsibly implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Id., p 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IIJA provides $660 billion over five years to be
distributed by DOT through formula programs and competitive
grants to states, local governments, metropolitan planning
organizations, transit agencies, tribes, passenger and freight
railroad carriers, ports, airports, and other eligible
recipients.\3\ This amount includes the following topline
amounts by mode:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-01/
DOT_Infrastructure_Investment_and_
Jobs_Act_Authorization_Table_%28IIJA%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L$365 billion for highway programs administered by
the FHWA; \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ More information on highway programs available at https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L$108 billion for transit programs administered by
the FTA; \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ More information on transit programs available at https://
www.transit.dot.gov/BIL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L$102 billion for rail programs administered by
the FRA; \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ More information on rail programs available at https://
railroads.dot.gov/BIL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L$43 billion for multimodal project, safety, and
innovation grant programs administered by the OST; \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ More information on OST programs available at https://
www.transportation.gov/mission/budget/bipartisan-infrastructure-law-
dashboard
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L$25 billion for aviation programs administered by
the FAA; \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ More information on aviation programs available at https://
www.faa.gov/bil
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L$8 billion for safety programs administered by
the NHTSA; \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ More information on NHTSA programs available at https://
www.nhtsa.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L$5 billion for motor carrier safety programs
administered by the FMCSA; \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ More information on FMCSA grant programs available at https://
www.fmcsa.dot.gov/Bipartisan-Infrastructure-Law-Grants
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L$2.3 billion for port and waterway programs
administered by the MARAD; \11\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ More information on MARAD programs available at https://
www.maritime.dot.gov/about-us/bipartisan-infrastructure-law-maritime-
administration
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L$1 billion for modernization of natural gas
distribution pipelines administered by PHMSA.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ More information on pipeline grants available at https://
www.phmsa.dot.gov/news/usdot-begins-accepting-applications-president-
bidens-bipartisan-infrastructure-law-program

The guaranteed funding provided by the IIJA flows to
funding recipients through more than 100 grant programs
authorized by the legislation and administered by DOT and
includes both formula and competitive grants. A comprehensive
list of these programs across modal agencies and total funding
available for each program can be found on DOT's website.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.transportation.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/
bipartisan-infrastructure-law-grant-programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formula program funding is apportioned to recipients each
fiscal year (FY). States were initially notified of their first
year (FY 2022) of IIJA highway funding, totaling $52.5 billion,
in an apportionment notice issued on December 14, 2021, and the
agency has issued subsequent apportionment notices specific to
the Bridge Formula Program, Appalachian Highway Development
System funds, and the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
formula funds.\14\ State departments of transportation
generally have four fiscal years in which to obligate these
formula funds.\15\ Transit agencies were notified of their
first year (FY 2022) of IIJA transit formula funding, totaling
$13.4 billion, in an apportionment notice announced on April 6,
2022, once funding for the full fiscal year was made available
with the passage of the FY 2022 appropriations bill.\16\
Obligation timelines vary by transit formula program, but in
most cases agencies have several fiscal years to obligate
funding.\17\ Airports were notified of their first year (FY
2022) of IIJA Airport Infrastructure Grant formula funding,
totaling $2.89 billion, in an apportionment notice announced on
December 16, 2021.\18\ Airports will generally have four fiscal
years to obligate these funds. Funds not obligated at the end
of the fourth fiscal year will be recovered by the FAA and made
available for competitive grants in the fifth fiscal year.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/
n4510858/ and
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/funding.cfm.
\15\ Funding Federal-aid Highways, January 2017, p. 23, available
at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/olsp/fundingfederalaid/FFAH_2017.pdf
\16\ https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/apportionments/current-
apportionments
\17\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/04/28/2022-
09143/notice-of-fta-transit-program-changes-authorized-funding-levels-
and-implementation-of-the
\18\ https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-announces-first-year-airport-
funding-amounts-bipartisan-infrastructure-law
\19\ As set forth directly in the IIJA provision, see P.L. 117-58,
Division J, TITLE VIII, Federal Aviation Administration, Airport
Infrastructure Grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For competitive grant programs, DOT first issues a Notice
of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) which sets forth eligibilities
under the particular grant, factors for applicant evaluation,
the period of time during which interested parties can apply,
and other relevant information. DOT posts NOFOs and applicants
generally apply through the federal www.grants.gov website.
Since the enactment of the IIJA, DOT has issued NOFOs for the
following competitive grant programs (with grant opportunity
numbers or NOFO publications noted parenthetically):
LReconnecting Communities Pilot Discretionary
Grant Program (DOT-RCP-FY22-01)
LBridge Investment Program (693JJ322NF00009)
LLocal and Regional Project Assistance Grants
(RAISE) (DTOS59-22-RA-RAISE)
LBus and Bus Facilities (Competitive) (FTA 2022-
002-TPM-BUSC)
LLow and No Emission Buses (FTA 2022-001-TPM-LWNO)
LNational Infrastructure Project Assistance (MEGA)
(NIPA-22-MEGA-22)
LNationally Significant Freight and Highway
Projects (INFRA) (NSMFHP-22-INFRA-22)
LRural Surface Transportation Grant (Rural)
(RSTGP-22-RURAL-22)
LPort Infrastructure Development Program Grants
(MA-PID-22-001)
LPilot Program for Transit-Oriented Development
(TOD) Planning (FTA-2022-004-TPE-TODP)
LUTC Program Competition 2022-2026 Grants
(UTCOPENCOMP2022)
LSafe Streets and Roads for All Discretionary
Grant Program (DOT-SS4A-FY22-01)
LNatural Gas Distribution Infrastructure Safety
and Modernization Grant(693JK322NF0018)
LRailroad Crossing Elimination Program (87 FR
40335 / FR-RCE-22-001)
LSmall Shipyard Grant Program (DTMASSG22)
LAirport Terminal Program (87 FR 10890)
LContract Tower Competitive Grant Program (87 FR
23687)
LPassenger Ferry Grant (Program FTA-2022-006-TPM-
FERRY)
LElectric or Low-Emitting Ferry Pilot Program
(FTA-2022-007-TPM-FERRYPILOT)
LFerry Service for Rural Communities Program (FTA-
2022-008-TPM-FERRYRURAL)
LAmerica's Marine Highway Program
(693JF722R000012)
LTribal Transportation Program Safety Fund
(2022TTPSF)

To provide assistance and information on future funding
opportunities for potential applicants, DOT has posted on its
website anticipated dates for future grant notices.\20\ DOT has
also created the ``Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Dashboard,''
which allows users to view IIJA funding by modal
administration, fiscal year, and other factors such as funding
source and program type.\21\ In addition, in May 2022 the White
House published a document entitled ``Building a Better
America: A Guidebook to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for
State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Governments, and Other
Partners'' which outlines each of the funding programs
available under the IIJA.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ https://www.transportation.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/
upcoming-notice-funding-opportunity-announcements-2022
\21\ https://www.transportation.gov/mission/budget/bipartisan-
infrastructure-law-dashboard
\22\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/
BUILDING-A-BETTER-AMERICA-V2.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOT has also launched the DOT Navigator website, which
lists resources to ``help communities understand the best ways
to apply for grants, and to plan for and deliver transformative
infrastructure projects and services'' and provides a one-stop
shop for technical assistance resources available through
DOT.\23\ The Office of Management and Budget separately issued
implementation guidance in the form of a memorandum on April
18, 2022, regarding the application of Buy America requirements
to infrastructure funding that Congress enacted as part of the
IIJA.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ https://www.transportation.gov/dot-navigator
\24\ M-22-11 (whitehouse.gov)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

WITNESS LIST

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

IMPLEMENTING THE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND JOBS ACT

----------

TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2022

House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m. in room
2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon. Peter A.
DeFazio (Chair of the committee) presiding.
Members present in person: Mr. DeFazio, Ms. Norton, Mr.
Larsen of Washington, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Cohen, Mr.
Garamendi, Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, Mr. Payne, Mr.
DeSaulnier, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Malinowski, Mr.
Stanton, Mr. Allred, Ms. Davids of Kansas, Mr. Lamb, Mr.
Moulton, Mr. Auchincloss, Ms. Strickland, Mr. Graves of
Missouri, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr.
Massie, Mr. Perry, Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Dr. Babin, Mr.
Graves of Louisiana, Mr. Rouzer, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr.
LaMalfa, Mr. Westerman, Mr. Mast, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Miss
Gonzalez-Colon, Mr. Balderson, Mr. Stauber, Mr. Johnson of
South Dakota, Dr. Van Drew, Mr. Nehls, Ms. Malliotakis, Ms. Van
Duyne, and Mr. Gimenez.
Members present remotely: Ms. Johnson of Texas, Mr. Johnson
of Georgia, Mr. Carson, Ms. Titus, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Lowenthal,
Mr. Garcia of Illinois, Ms. Bourdeaux, Ms. Newman, Mr. Katko,
Mr. Guest, and Mrs. Steel.
Mr. DeFazio. The hearing will come to order. Thank you.
I ask unanimous consent to authorize the chair to declare a
recess during the hearing.
And without objection, so ordered.
As a reminder, all of you who are out there remotely,
please keep your microphone muted or I will be yelling at you.
To insert a document in the record, please email it to
DocumentsT&I@
mail.house.gov.
And with that, I am going to give a brief opening
statement.
I want to thank the Secretary for being here today. We are
holding this hearing to do some oversight on the implementation
of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and I appreciate
you being here today to tell us about the progress.
This may be a long day, and I appreciate the fact that you
are going to make time available in the hope that all Members
who have questions will have an opportunity. So, we are going
to move along quickly, and we are going to strictly observe
time limits, so that we can move through this with as many
Members participating as possible.
I really appreciate the fact that the IIJA money is getting
out the door at a record pace. I mean, this is something that I
have been looking forward to and working on since Obama was
President when I passed the bill out of subcommittee to
increase spending by $350 billion, which at that time seemed
like a phenomenal amount, and obviously this one is $660
billion.
Finally, after 12 years, we have got that, and this is
larger than anything else the Department has ever had to deal
with before. And as I understand it, you have so far
apportioned $75 billion in highway, transit, and airport
formula funds, issued Notices of Funding Opportunity for tens
of billions of dollars more through 22 competitive grant
programs. This is absolutely unprecedented in terms of the
investments we are making and the pace at which we are putting
this money out.
The stakes are high. We want to get this money out.
Inflation is eating into what we are going to be able to build.
And the more quickly we can commit the funds, the more we will
get done.
I expect that we will hear some criticism from my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but sadly, almost
none of them here today or on this committee voted for this
legislation, which was amazing to me at the time of passage. I
know Donald Trump didn't like it because he couldn't do it, and
this actually got done.
But it is a record amount of long overdue investment, and
we aren't just, as I said before--and, please, we are not just
trying to do Eisenhower 8.0.
At the same time, you are looking at--you have guidance on
``fix it first,'' something that was stripped out by the
Senate, the 10 Members of the Senate, 10 Republicans and 2
Democrats, none of whom have a major role on any of the 3
committees of jurisdiction in the Senate who wrote this bill.
They used our template in terms of money and more routine
things, but they bristled at the idea that we would deal
meaningfully with climate change and look at alternatives to
just an infinite amount of highway building, which will not
solve our problems. As we all know, there is something called
induced demand.
I talked a lot about the Virginia Railway Express as
opposed to expanding 95 South, and I am hoping States will
replicate that around the country where we can reduce carbon
pollution, move people more efficiently, and look toward a
21st-century system in this country.
I appreciate the fact that you are encouraging the States.
You are not mandating or penalizing them. You are not taking
away decisionmaking authority. But we are just asking them--and
I have spoken to the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials about this--just take a look at this.
Fix it first, do the critical maintenance we need to do,
and then, secondly, when you are having a congestion problem,
look and see what is the best solution. Is it: Attempt to build
more highway-miles? Or is there a way to move the people more
efficiently?
I also appreciate the fact--I will be sending you a letter
soon to support your efforts to require a measurement reduction
of greenhouse gases. Transportation is our single largest
source of carbon pollution, and we do need to address that.
[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
Welcome to today's hearing to examine the implementation of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). Thank you, Secretary
Buttigieg, for taking time to sit with this committee today.
We extend our appreciation to you in advance for what may be a long
day, to ensure that every Member of our committee who wants to ask
questions has an opportunity to do so. Given the pace with which the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has been getting IIJA money out
the door, we know you would likely be working to implement this bill
today if you were not here with us.
Last November, Congress enacted the largest one-time infusion of
federal funds into our nation's infrastructure and transportation
network. The IIJA, also referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law, provided $660 billion for DOT to administer and distribute. This
topline dollar amount, and the number of grant programs DOT must
compete out, are significantly larger than any other past
transportation authorization or infrastructure bill provided to the
Department.
In the eight months since enactment of the law, DOT has apportioned
the $75 billion in highway, transit, and airport formula funds provided
in the IIJA for fiscal year 2022, and has issued Notices of Funding
Opportunity for tens of billions more through 22 competitive grant
programs. The dollar amounts and the pace at which they are going out
is unprecedented.
The stakes are high to get this money out the door quickly to
states, local governments, transit agencies, airports, ports, and
passenger and freight railroads. Inflation is causing real pain for the
American people, with ongoing supply chain woes adding to the
challenge. There may not be a magic bullet to eliminate these problems
overnight, but infrastructure has historically proven to be a solid
investment in our nation, and today better roads and bridges, more
efficient railroads and ports, and fewer bottlenecks are more important
than ever.
So while many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
choose to use every opportunity to criticize the White House on our
common challenges, the truth is almost none of them voted for this
bill. They all had an opportunity to vote for a piece of legislation
that is not about massive federal programs. Instead, these are programs
where the vast majority of the money flows from Congress, passes
through the U.S. DOT to states and local governments, and lands at
private sector construction and engineering firms, and the workers they
hire, to build physical assets. IIJA funding will provide jobs in the
near term in the transportation construction, transit, trucking,
aviation, rail, and maritime sectors. And the projects the bill funds
will bolster our economy, mobility, and quality of life in the long
term.
But IIJA represents more than just a call to keep things humming
along. Business as usual, or Eisenhower 8.0 as I have said repeatedly,
was not going to cut it to address climate change and reduce carbon
pollution. It was not going to improve safety or equity outcomes on our
transportation networks. IIJA ushered in the first-ever federal highway
grant funding directed at reducing carbon pollution, at reconnecting
communities, and at vulnerable road users with a focus on the dangers
of road design.
These and other programs and policy changes are now in the hands of
U.S. DOT to execute. I applaud the Department's efforts to date on this
front as well. The steps you have taken to prioritize equity
considerations in grants, the implementation of the Administration's
Justice40 Initiative, and ongoing work to ensure Disadvantaged Business
Enterprises reap the benefits of IIJA funding are examples of making
equity outcomes matter. Issuing the National Roadway Safety Strategy
demonstrates that this DOT is serious about addressing the recent spike
in traffic deaths, which includes a disproportionate increase for
pedestrians and cyclists.
And you have taken actions to ensure that the carbon pollution
reduction provisions of the IIJA are not just words on the page. By
encouraging states--that's right, encouraging, not mandating or
penalizing or taking away decision-making authority from states--to
evaluate and think creatively about how to maximize the efficiency of
existing assets before adding capacity is one tool DOT has employed in
this effort.
I will soon be sending a letter along with many of my colleagues to
DOT in support of the Federal Highway Administration's proposed rule to
track GHG emissions from on-road sources on the National Highway
System, and to require state DOTs and metropolitan planning
organizations to set declining emissions targets. This is another
necessary step in addressing the climate crisis, as we can't improve
what we can't measure.
Finally, I'll say to the critics of this Administration, who say
that your actions are carrying out House ideas from the INVEST Act--our
transportation system's shortcomings, our planet's challenges, and the
need for a response can't be ignored or wished away. Coming to the same
conclusion after reviewing the same set of facts doesn't mean
collusion. Given our current reality, taking action to evolve how we
move people and goods is responsible and appropriate--and that is what
this administration is doing. I commend the steady hand with which you,
Mr. Secretary, are guiding the implementation of this bill to date, to
deliver for the American people.
Thank you, and I look forward to the testimony and today's
discussion.

Mr. DeFazio. So, with that said, I would now yield to the
ranking member.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
calling this hearing. And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being
here today.
Since you last testified before the committee, Congress did
pass the $1.2 trillion infrastructure package. And although
many Members on my side of the aisle voted against it, it was
mostly because there was no Republican input, and then
ultimately no House input in the bill. Having said that, I do
recognize it is now the law of the land, and I respect that
fact.
My focus now is going to be on oversight of the law and
ensuring that it is implemented efficiently, effectively, and
adheres to the letter of the law.
And why is this important? Because our Nation is dealing
with crisis after crisis, from a spending crisis to an energy
crisis. We have a supply chain crisis, a workforce shortage
crisis, and all of these problems are feeding into a historic
inflation crisis. And it is astounding that inflation has
increased 550 percent.
Americans know that they can no longer buy the same amount
of food or gasoline or other necessities with their hard-earned
dollars, as they could just 1\1/2\ years ago. Obviously, not by
a longshot.
And the same holds true for our infrastructure dollars.
Committee Republicans heard some pretty grim warnings last week
during our roundtable on inflation. Companies working in the
transportation space are struggling with exploding costs across
the board, and some of these companies can't shoulder the risk
of inflation, which means some of the businesses, especially
smaller ones, are unable to even bid on some of the jobs.
At the same time, States are running over their
transportation budgets, as they have the impossible task of
estimating project costs, which are going to continue to
increase exponentially.
In my home State of Missouri, they are estimating that they
are going to go $140 million over budget in the current year's
transportation plan.
States are also receiving fewer and fewer bids on their
projects. With all the regulatory redtape, they aren't able to
get through the process in time for a company's proposal to
stay true to their original estimated cost. And that is why it
is incumbent upon the Department and Congress to make sure that
every single dollar from the law counts and is directed towards
projects safely and efficiently to move people, to move goods,
and clear the bottlenecks that are adding to the supply chain
crisis.
However, many stakeholders have already expressed concerns
about the administration's implementation of the infrastructure
law, and I share some of those concerns.
Just to highlight a few, one of the concerns to me and many
others is December 16th of last year--the Federal Highway
Administration guidance memo. Mr. Secretary, I know that you
have spoken about some of the concerns raised since this
guidance was issued, but I hope you recognize the fact that it
remains a serious source of concern and confusion because it
pushes the administration's own priorities, including a bias
against adding new highway capacity over what is written in the
law itself.
Another related concern I have is the number of the
Department's competitive grant notices that also include
language doubling down on the Federal Highway Administration's
guidance. The notices for grant programs like the INFRA, RAISE,
Mega, Rural, and Reconnecting Communities grants. They all
clearly show that the administration isn't as laser-focused as
it needs to be on fundamental transportation policy and
projects that actually improve mobility.
One additional concern I want to highlight is in regard to
the One Federal Decision provisions, which were included in the
law and are critical to cutting the redtape for so many of the
projects. Instead of simply implementing the OFD provisions,
the administration released its action plan on project
permitting on May 11th, and it doesn't seem to mention OFD. So,
again, here is another example of the law laying out an
explicit policy, which the administration appears to be
ignoring in favor of accelerating projects that fit its own
agenda.
The result of the administration putting its agenda ahead
of the law of the land, and even acting in contradiction to the
law in some cases, is that infrastructure funding--already
dramatically devalued by this crippling inflation, as has been
pointed out--is being diluted even further. This is not shaping
up to be the infrastructure bill that Americans were promised.
And now more than ever this administration needs to focus on
real infrastructure and on policies that can get us out of so
many of these crises.
So, with that, I do want to thank the chairman again for
holding this hearing.
[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, for calling this important hearing, and
thank you, Secretary Buttigieg, for being here today. Since you last
testified before the Committee, Congress passed a $1.2 trillion
infrastructure package, and although many Members on our side of the
aisle voted against the infrastructure bill--partly because it had no
Republican member input and ultimately no House input--I recognize and
respect that it's now the law of the land.
My focus now is on oversight of the law and ensuring that it is
implemented efficiently, effectively, and adheres to the letter of the
law. Why is that so important?
Because our Nation is dealing with crisis after crisis--from a
federal spending crisis, to an energy crisis, to a supply chain crisis,
to a workforce shortage crisis. And all of these crises are feeding
into an historic inflation crisis. It is astounding that inflation has
increased 550 percent since the beginning of this Administration.
Americans know that they can no longer buy the same amount of food,
clothing, gasoline, and other necessities with their hard-earned
dollars as they could just a year and a half ago. Not by a long shot.
The same holds true for our infrastructure dollars.
Committee Republicans heard some pretty grim warnings last week at
our roundtable on inflation. Companies working in the transportation
space are struggling with exploding costs across the board. Some of
these companies cannot shoulder the risk of inflation, which means some
businesses--especially the smaller ones--are unable to even bid on
jobs.
At the same time, states are running over their transportation
budgets, as they have the impossible task of estimating project costs,
which continue to increase exponentially. My home state of Missouri has
estimated they are $140 million over budget for their current year's
transportation plan.
States also are receiving fewer and fewer bids on their projects;
and with all the regulatory red tape, they aren't even able to get
through the process in time for a company's proposals to stay true to
their original estimated costs.
That's why it is incumbent upon the Department and Congress to make
sure every single dollar from this law counts and is directed toward
projects that safely and efficiently move people, move goods, and clear
bottlenecks that are adding to our supply chain issues.
However, many stakeholders have already expressed concerns about
this Administration's implementation of the infrastructure law, and I
share those concerns. I'll highlight just a few of these issues.
One ongoing concern for me and many others is the December 16,
2021, Federal Highways Administration guidance memo. Mr. Secretary, I
know that you've spoken about some of the concerns raised since this
guidance was issued, but I hope you recognize the fact that it remains
a serious source of concern and confusion because it pushes the
Administration's own priorities--including a bias against adding new
highway capacity--over what's written in the law itself.
Another related concern I have is the number of the Department's
competitive grant notices that also include language doubling down on
the Federal Highways guidance. The notices for grant programs like
INFRA, RAISE, MEGA, Rural, and Reconnecting Communities all clearly
show that this Administration isn't as laser-focused as it needs to be
on fundamental transportation policy and projects that actually improve
mobility.
And one additional concern I want to highlight is in regard to the
One Federal Decision (OFD) provisions included in the law that are
critical to cutting red tape for projects. Instead of simply
implementing the OFD provisions, the Administration released an
``Action Plan on Project Permitting'' on May 11, 2022--but it doesn't
even mention OFD. So again, here is another example of the law laying
out an explicit policy, which the Administration appears to be ignoring
in favor of accelerating projects that fit its own agenda.
The result of the Administration putting its agenda ahead of the
law of the land, and even acting in contradiction of that law in some
cases, is that infrastructure funding--already dramatically devalued by
crippling inflation--is being diluted even further.
This is not shaping up to be the infrastructure bill Americans were
promised. Now more than ever, this Administration needs to focus on
real infrastructure, and on policies that can help get us out of these
crises.
With that, I want to thank both the Chair and the Secretary again,
and I look forward to this hearing.

Mr. Graves of Missouri. And thank you very much, Mr.
Secretary. I know you are busy, but coming before Congress, it
does mean a lot to a lot of Members. Thanks.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the ranking member.
Now I would like to formally recognize the Honorable Pete
Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation. Thanks again for
joining us today. I look forward to your testimony.
And without objection, our witness' full statement will be
included in the record. And since your written testimony is
made a part of the record, the committee requests that you
limit your initial remarks to 5 minutes.
With that, you may proceed.

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

Secretary Buttigieg. Good morning, and thank you very much,
Chair DeFazio. Thank you, Ranking Member Graves. And thank you,
members of the committee, for the opportunity to join you this
morning.
Before I begin, I wanted in particular to recognize you,
Chair DeFazio, for 36 years of extraordinary service, and to
congratulate you on your upcoming retirement.
There are few who can claim to have done more than you to
champion safety, to promote environmental justice, and to
advance transportation systems to benefit all Americans.
I also want to acknowledge that earlier this year we lost a
Member and former chair of this committee, the late
Representative Don Young, who represented the people of Alaska
for nearly half a century and was often willing to cross the
aisle to get things done for the American people.
Thanks to leaders like Chair DeFazio, Representative Young,
and so many of you, we now have the most transformative
transportation investment in most of our lifetimes, in the form
of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. And it couldn't
have come at a more important time. From delays at ports to
freight congestion to shortages in aviation, American
transportation has rarely confronted this many intersecting
challenges at once, both immediate and entrenched. Nearly
43,000 people died in traffic crashes last year, each of them a
parent or child, colleague or friend.
Transportation produces more carbon emissions than any
other sector at a time when the nations of the world are
rallying to confront the climate challenge. And as Americans
grapple with the effects of inflation, we know that
transportation is the second largest household expense after
housing, affecting every family budget.
This is also, though, a moment of enormous opportunity,
with reason for optimism. Thanks to the infrastructure law, my
Department has never seen a moment of greater potential than
now to build transportation resources that connect everyone
safely, efficiently, and affordably to the things we need and
the people we love.
Needless to say, we have been busy. We have already
announced nearly $84 billion in grant funding from across the
Department. Every few days, we have another great announcement:
Bridge repair programs that will help us move more goods more
affordably and people more safely, a national electric vehicle
charging network with the potential to bring cost-saving
technology to rural communities and help fight the climate
crisis, and safety initiatives that will reduce crashes and
save lives; for example, getting rid of outdated railroad
crossings to prevent tragedies like the one we saw recently in
Chariton County.
Ranking Member Graves, my thoughts are with all of your
constituents, the passengers, the families, who were impacted
by that derailment. And I want to emphasize that DOT will
continue to support NTSB's investigation and work to improve
railroad safety nationwide.
From safety to reliability to affordability, name a
dimension of transportation that you deal with in daily life;
we have a program addressing it. All of this is going to help
people get where they need to go while creating jobs and
economic opportunity across the country.
You all know better than anyone that passing the law is
only the first step. Success means delivering good projects
that improve the lives of your constituents.
I will give you just a few examples of the work we are
supporting. Alpena, Michigan, is a community of fewer than
10,000 people where one of the largest employers is the local
cement plant. We awarded the city funding to modernize their
port so it can bring in larger cargo ships. That means more
business for the plant, more jobs for the people of Alpena, and
better access to materials for manufacturers across the region.
Within the city limits of Baltimore, it can take hours to
get from home to work if you don't have a car. So, we are
funding 10 new miles of dedicated bus lanes to connect
residential neighborhoods with major employers in a single
corridor that supports more than 180,000 jobs.
In 2007, Findlay, Ohio--a town of 40,000--flooded. Hundreds
of homes and businesses were damaged or forced to move. Now we
are helping Findlay replace a century-old railroad bridge with
a modern ballast deck bridge that will not only help people get
to work but also reduce the risk of flooding damage in the
future.
And these are just a sample from among literally thousands
of projects that will help Americans live and work where they
want, help businesses deliver better products, and help
families save for the future. It can even save lives.
In this good work, we will need your continued leadership
and partnership, as well as that of communities across the
country, organized labor, businesses, State, Tribal, and local
officials, and so many more. Together, we have the opportunity
to improve countless lives, support good-paying jobs,
strengthen America's manufacturers, modernize our
infrastructure for decades to come, and cement America's
position as the world's leading economy.
So, thank you once more for inviting me to be here today,
and I am looking forward to addressing your questions.
[Secretary Buttigieg's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation,
U.S. Department of Transportation
Chair DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. Before I begin, I'd
like to thank you in particular, Chair DeFazio, for your 36 years of
extraordinary service, and congratulate you on your upcoming
retirement. There are few who can claim to have done more than you to
champion safety, promote environmental justice, and advance our
transportation systems to the benefit of all Americans.
I also want to acknowledge that earlier this year, we lost a member
and former Chair of this committee--the late Representative Don Young,
who represented the people of Alaska for nearly half a century and was
often willing to cross the aisle to get things done for the American
people. Thanks to leaders like Chair DeFazio, Representative Young, and
so many of you, we now have the most transformative transportation
investment in most of our lifetimes in the form of the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act.
And it couldn't have come at a more important time. From delays at
ports, to freight congestion, to shortages in aviation, American
transportation has rarely confronted this many intersecting challenges
at once, both immediate and entrenched. Nearly 43,000 people died in
traffic crashes last year--each of them a parent or child, colleague or
friend. Transportation produces more carbon emissions than any other
sector, at a time when the nations of the world are rallying to
confront the climate challenge. And as Americans grapple with the
effects of inflation, we know transportation is the second largest
household expense after housing, affecting every family budget.
But this is also a moment of enormous opportunity with reason for
optimism. Thanks to the infrastructure law, my Department has never
seen a moment of greater potential than now--to build transportation
resources that connect everyone safely, efficiently, and affordably to
the things we need and the people we love.
Needless to say, we've been busy. We have already announced nearly
$84 billion in grant funding from across the Department. Every few days
we have another great announcement: bridge repair programs that will
help us move goods more affordably and people more safely; a national
electric vehicle charging network with the potential to bring cost-
saving technology to rural communities and help fight the climate
crisis; and safety initiatives that will reduce crashes and save lives,
for example, getting rid of outdated railroad crossings to prevent
tragedies like the one we saw in Chariton County.
Ranking Member Graves, my thoughts are with all your constituents,
the passengers, and their families who were impacted by that
derailment. DOT will continue to support NTSB's investigation and work
to improve railroad safety nationwide.
From safety to reliability to affordability, name a dimension of
transportation that you deal with in your daily life, and chances are,
we've got a program for it. All this will help people get to where they
need to go, while creating jobs and economic opportunity across the
country.
You know better than anyone that passing the law is only the first
step. Success means delivering good projects that improve the lives of
your constituents. Here are some examples of what we're supporting:
Alpena, Michigan is a city of fewer than 10,000 people,
where one of the largest employers is the local cement plant. We
awarded the city funding to modernize their port, so it can bring in
larger cargo ships. That means more business for the plant, more jobs
for the people of Alpena, and better access to materials for
manufacturers across the region.
Within the city limits of Baltimore, it can take hours to
get from home to work if you don't have a car. We're funding ten new
miles of dedicated bus lanes, to connect residential neighborhoods with
major employers--a single corridor that supports more than 180,000
jobs.
In 2007, Findlay, Ohio--a town of about 40,000--flooded.
Hundreds of homes and businesses were damaged or forced to move. Now,
we're helping Findlay replace a century-old railroad bridge with a
modern ballast deck bridge that will not only help people get to work,
but also reduce the risk of flooding damage.

These are among literally thousands of projects that will help
Americans live and work where they want, help businesses deliver better
products, and help families save for the future. They can even save
lives.
In this good work, we will need your continued leadership and
partnership--as well as that of communities across the country,
organized labor, businesses, State, Tribal, and local officials, and so
many more.
Together, we have the opportunity to improve countless lives,
support good paying jobs, strengthen America's manufacturers, modernize
our infrastructure for decades to come, and cement America's position
as the world's leading economy.
Thank you once more for inviting me to be here today. I look
forward to your questions.

Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I will now move on
to questions. I will first recognize the chair of the Highways
and Transit Subcommittee, Eleanor Holmes Norton, for her
questions. Eleanor will be virtual.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Mr. Buttigieg, for being here today.
As you know, the Department of Transportation grant
recipients have historically been prohibited from utilizing
geographic or economic or other hiring preferences regarding
the use of labor for DOT-funded transportation projects.
But the new infrastructure law provided new statutory
authority for recipients of DOT grants to utilize local labor
hiring preferences. We call them local hires on construction
contracts. I do support this authority.
As a former mayor yourself, can you explain what this new
authority means for cities and other grant recipients carrying
out infrastructure projects? For example, are grant recipients
required to utilize local hiring preferences?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you very much. As both
Secretary and as mayor, I have heard too often stories from
neighborhoods that have long craved some kind of infrastructure
investment finally see it, only for residents to look at the
worksite and wonder if any of the people getting the good-
paying jobs, working on that project, come from anywhere near
the area where the project is being done.
But as you mentioned earlier, our ability to support that
kind of work was restricted to pilot programs. Using the
authority provided for us in the new law, we will be able to
support local hiring provisions to the extent they are
supported on the ground in ways that we think are going to
contribute enormously to opportunity in communities that
perhaps in the past have been left out of the good-paying job
creation and the ladders to the middle class that come with it.
And so, we will continue using the authorities provided in
the law to support that kind of work and support that extension
of access to opportunity for so many who have not felt that
they have been part of it in administrations or in years past.
Ms. Norton. Well, they can use local hiring preferences.
Are they required to use local hiring preferences?
Secretary Buttigieg. I am sorry. Could you repeat the
question?
Ms. Norton. Are grant recipients required to utilize local
hiring preferences?
Secretary Buttigieg. So, we encourage local hire. It
depends of course on the program, but Federal-aid highway
programming now paves the way for grant recipients to do so,
and we will be working with them every step of the way.
Ms. Norton. OK. I will be encouraging my transportation
authority to require local hiring preferences.
I would like to ask you about Union Station here in the
District of Columbia. The Federal Railroad Administration
recently revised its proposal to develop Union Station. I
appreciate the renewed focus on better serving transit, rail,
bus riders, along with cyclists that are provided in this
proposal.
But it is also critical to ensure that Union Station design
works for DC residents who rely on local transit, food, and
retail options, and who will be impacted on a daily basis by
changes in traffic patterns in the area.
What is your Department doing to engage with local
residents about the project and to account for their needs and
suggestions going forward?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, as your question importantly
notes, there are many modes of transportation that converge at
Union Station. And while it is certainly known partly for its
role in intercity rail and longer distance travel, it is also
very significant as a hub for transit and as a retail site that
is very meaningful for the immediate neighborhood, both in
terms of access to retail and in terms of access to jobs.
So, we consider it very important, as we would in any
project, but certainly with all of the overlapping equities
here, for the voices of community members to be heard. I know
that is expressed partly through you and through your office,
but also expect for there to be immediate means of input. And
we will work with the project sponsor and knowing that the
District of Columbia, of course, is very hands-on with this, to
make sure that we support that kind of participation and that
all those relevant concerns are heard.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady.
I now turn to Ranking Member Sam Graves.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My
question is actually fairly simple, because one of the things I
am concerned about and have been pretty active in over the
years is trying to figure out how we make the Highway Trust
Fund solvent.
We have obviously got a lot of vehicles on the road that
aren't paying for the use of the road. Again, it is something I
have been pretty active in, and I know there was an alternative
funding board I think that was put in the infrastructure plan.
I am just curious how that is coming along.
And I know we had some pilot projects going on out there,
too, some VMT pilot projects and a few things. I don't know. We
are not talking about that anymore, and I know it is a
monumental task when it is eventually going to have to be
tackled to figure that out. But just curious on your thoughts
and where we are in that process and how those pilots are
going.
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. Yes. There were the pilots
that were authorized previously through the FAST Act. A number
of States have pursued them, and we are always interested in
their experience and trying to get information about the
results there. Further pilots are provided for in the IIJA, and
we will support that work as well.
I think ultimately there are some profound policy
considerations that will need to be addressed in terms of the
long-term viability of the Highway Trust Fund. And, as you
know, for the IIJA, it was very important to this
administration not to take any step that would be inconsistent
with the President's commitment not to raise taxes on anybody
making less than----
Mr. Graves of Missouri [interposing]. And I understand
that.
Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. $400,000 a year. But in
some way, shape, or form, we need to be prepared for a model of
sustainable highway trust funding that is different from the
one that we have inherited.
And as these pilots continue to take shape--and we can
update your office on the Federal kind of side in terms of how
we are laying the groundwork for that pursuant to IIJA--I think
it will give us some important data points that we are going to
need, especially if Congress decides for the long run that it
is not as prepared as it has been in the past to commit general
fund dollars to that purpose.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. And we are going to continue to
pull general fund dollars in. And I worry about that, the
precedent that it sets. In transportation, we have always tried
to be a pay-as-you-go and a fee-based process, and I am
concerned about, you know, just the movement away from that.
But it is a concern. Thanks.
I yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. I thank the gentleman.
Now Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Yes. Thank you very much, and let me
thank the Secretary for making himself available and for the
job he is doing on behalf of the administration.
And I want to thank you for visiting Dallas-Fort Worth, but
you only saw two programs, so, I hope you will be coming back
soon.
It is critically important to make sure that everyone is
benefitting from this legislation. So, could you discuss what
the Federal DOT is doing to ensure that disadvantaged business
programs are working properly and are guaranteeing the
minority- and women-owned businesses are getting a fair share
of these transportation dollars?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you for the question. This
is very important to us. It is, of course, the rationale for
the DBE programs that are provided for in the law, and also
just an essential matter of fairness in terms of the business
opportunity that parallels, in my view, the need for fairness
in labor opportunity that was at stake in the question that
Representative Norton asked earlier.
In order to make good on that, we have been actively
working not just to ensure that there is compliance with the
DBE law, but in order to make sure that we are better alerting
the DBE community to the business opportunities that it might
create. For example, our Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization has been preparing events around the
country to help bring together officials and contractors to
preview the opportunities and get a better sense of how to
compete for those opportunities.
We know that----
Mr. DeFazio [interrupting]. If the gentleman would suspend
for 1 second. I believe someone's microphone is on, and I
believe it might be Eleanor Holmes Norton. Please mute your
microphones.
Continue, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. We recognize that our
processes need to be user-friendly, especially if we are trying
to expand the base of historically excluded business owners who
have access to these Federal opportunities. And so, we will be
working with the States, the transit agencies, and others who
are being funded, while also making sure that we meet our own
ambitious goals for direct Federal procurement, which have been
increased this year on the SDB side to 20 percent.
And making sure that we are meeting our goals in-house I
think will also give us important expertise and experience,
which will be relevant for us to work with the States and the
other partners on for the effective inclusion of various
businesses and opportunities created by the bill writ large.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Well, thank you very much. Now, I
know that this is not important to a lot of people, but cities
that were impacted by highways, and disadvantaged communities
are really concerned about it--and some smaller ones, I might
add--as we look around the country.
But I am hoping that we will provide some robust funding
for Reconnecting Communities. I know that in my district, in
Dallas, Texas, right in the downtown areas, we have at least
two major areas. And so, I am hoping that there will be some
attention given to those important reconnections.
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. We had the great
pleasure of rolling out the Reconnecting Communities Program
recently in Birmingham and have seen just enormous interest
around the country in knitting together places that have been
separated or divided by a piece of infrastructure, be it a
railway, a highway, an interchange, or something else.
I think that we will learn a great deal through this first-
ever round of applications coming in, and we recognize that the
program will very likely be oversubscribed, that we will get
more than $200 million worth of applications this first year,
but also hope in the work that we will be able to fund to light
the way for what jurisdictions may be able to do with their own
dollars, even if not earmarked for this purpose, knowing that
that benefits the entire community with better transportation
networks while also addressing some of the harms that had been
created by choices in the past.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, and thank you,
Mr. Chair. I think my time has just about expired.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. I thank the gentlelady, and now
Representative Crawford.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here. Continuing off that theme, you
recently announced a $1 billion program aimed at combatting
alleged racism in road projects. At the same time, DOT is
actively supporting the construction of the doomed California
high-speed rail project, despite reports that indicate the
project is in fact displacing and destroying low-income
minority communities in the track's path. So, my question is,
why are you dismantling existing highways in the name of racial
equity while you're also supporting a project that's actively
harming low-income minority communities?
Secretary Buttigieg. So, every project has an impact, and
what we think the law provides for is a process for local
communities to weigh in on how those impacts affect them, and
unless there is a civil rights violation, in which case, my
Department of course will very proactively address it, then it
falls to the project sponsor to decide how to balance those
concerns.
But in terms of the highway work, the way I view it is, if
Federal dollars were ever used in a way that separates or
segregates, then a pretty good use of Federal dollars now would
be to connect to address those harms, and my view also is that
the entire community, not just those who were disadvantaged, is
better off when a community is served by transportation
infrastructure that does in fact connect more than it divides.
Mr. Crawford. Well, that sounds pretty good rhetorically,
but in reality what we know is that this money pit in
California, that's largely being subsidized by Federal tax
dollars is doing exactly what you purport to prevent with this
$1 billion allocation.
So, I think that is worth revisiting at some point to
determine if in fact that's--certainly that's happening, is
that a good expenditure of money? But let me move on in the
interest of time.
Ranking Member Graves mentioned a 550-percent increase in
inflation since your boss took office that's wreaking havoc on
our economy, it's destroying particularly transportation
businesses, that includes the small suppliers and the
disadvantaged business enterprises that work in that space.
Companies just can't afford the cashflow this increased
inflation, to shoulder that risk, and what's worse is it's
creating a vacuum in the marketplace that allows for foreign
companies to come in and further decimate U.S. industries and
economies. So, my question is, can DOT provide guidance to
States and other recipients that inflation adjustments are
required in transportation contracts?
Secretary Buttigieg. So, cost containment is a major focus
for us right now in implementing the law, because we're hearing
this from both project sponsors and the business community. The
impact of cost escalation and inflation is unquestionably going
to reflect our ability to deliver.
I'm less sure that this is something that would put U.S.
companies at a disadvantage to international companies for the
simple reason that inflation is international. I was just in
Germany a few months ago. Inflation there is somewhere around 8
or 9 percent. So, a German company I imagine would face the
same kind of cost escalation as a U.S. company.
Mr. Crawford. With respect, I'm less concerned about a
German company and more concerned about a Chinese company which
subsidize at a much, much higher rate than anybody else, and
they do that obviously for reasons to disrupt our economy and
to jeopardize our national security. So, that's my focus there
is to make sure we're not creating an opportunity for Chinese
SOEs to come in and occupy space that should be occupied by
U.S. businesses, and particularly these DBEs that we're trying
to ensure have an opportunity to perform in that marketplace,
but let me move on. Has DOT performed a legal analysis to see
what is possible?
Secretary Buttigieg. To see what is possible to address
inflation?
Mr. Crawford. Sure.
Secretary Buttigieg. Sure. We're looking at it every day.
We don't need a legal analysis to tell us that we've got to
make sure that there is access to----
Mr. Crawford [interrupting]. I'm talking about a
contracting process.
Secretary Buttigieg. Do you mean in terms of imposing a new
requirement on the States?
Mr. Crawford. Yes.
Secretary Buttigieg. I have not addressed imposing
additional requirements on the States for this purpose, but we
can certainly look into that if you wish.
Mr. Crawford. So, what I'm asking is for contract reviews
to address inflation, has there been a legal analysis there?
Because we--when this was implemented, and we've seen inflation
continue on an upwards trajectory, and there were no provisions
offered to address that. And so, we're seeing that it's very,
very difficult for companies to maintain pace with this rate of
inflation.
So, I guess what I'm asking is, are contracts firm? Are
they fixed? Or are there any provisions in place for them to
address that inflation?
Secretary Buttigieg. So, often, contracts will have a
contingency factor that can affect any unanticipated pressure
on prices.
Mr. Crawford. And in this case, do they have a contingency
factor?
Secretary Buttigieg. Again, it would depend on the specific
program involved, but I would certainly welcome a chance to
work with your office to see if you agree that that's
adequately contemplated in the contract framework.
Mr. Crawford. Are any other provisions being discussed
about what DOT can do to help small businesses and DBEs
continue to participate in this market?
Secretary Buttigieg. A couple of things that we think can
be helpful here. One, of course, is simply doing everything we
can to ensure that projects move forward swiftly, right? The
greater the rate of inflation, the greater the cost of delay.
And so, as we're looking at everything from technical
assistance to support moving through the permitting process,
that's something that becomes even more important in a high
inflation environment.
Other mechanisms that I think could make a difference here
are ones that could look at the timing of the spikes that you
see in the costs of some of the different inputs, not that you
can predict the divergence between, let's say, the cost of
steel and the cost of labor 3 years from now. But there may be
ways to help project sponsors like transit agencies or State
highway departments at least map out where some of the bulges
are likeliest to occur in the availability or the restriction
of supply, and I think that could make a difference, too. So,
that's an example of the kind of thing we're exploring with
them as we partner to try to make sure we get the absolute most
value for these taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. We now turn to
Representative Larsen.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr.
Secretary, I have a very Washington State focused question to
start, and it has to do with the culvert funding we passed, an
$800 million program as part of the IIJA that included
contributions from State, local, and Tribal governments to
replace culverts. It's a big issue in our State, and when can
we expect information about the IIJA culvert funding program?
Secretary Buttigieg. So, we're hard at work on this. It is
new territory for us in many regards, so, we've been working
with interagency partners like the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
and others. I've told my team I'd like to see this guidance out
by the time the salmon are finished running, and hopefully
it'll be before the peak. So, that's the best timeframe I can
give you. Late summer is really the goal.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. There may be no salmon running at
all if we don't get the culvert funding out.
Secretary Buttigieg. We're hard at work on it.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. I understand, and I wanted to
underline that for us in the Northwest. Thanks so much.
Changing the direction a little bit, one aspect of the equity
question, we've been exploring equity issues in my district and
throughout the country, and there's a lot of variety in how
people define ``equity'' and so on, but there are aspects of
it.
One issue has to do with equity and data collection. If we
don't collect good data, then we don't really know specifically
the impacts on some communities, making it impossible for DOT
to factor that into community efforts to address inequity. So,
how have you used data collection for underrepresented groups,
and how is that factored into the equity action plan on the
DOT?
Secretary Buttigieg. So, what we're trying to do is strike
the right balance between gathering enough data to set good
policy and know how we're doing as far as the effects,
benefits, and impacts of our policies and projects on
disadvantaged communities, without creating such a burdensome
framework for data collection that it's actually low-income
communities or small rural communities. In other words, the
ones we'd most want to help from an equity perspective that
find it prohibitive to apply for projects or participate in our
processes.
I think that balance leaves room for us to gather data at a
more granular level, though, and I think we have a
responsibility to do that. We still have relatively little
visibility, for example, on who gets the economic benefit of
the dollars once they go out of our building, so to speak, and
I think that especially given what technology now makes
possible in terms of managing this data, we're in a position
to--in what I hope will be an administratively lightweight
fashion--gather more information than we've ever had, and use
that for decision support.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. There are many examples, Puget
Sound Regional Council has a data tracker on equity that we can
pass on to you that we're looking at, but related to this issue
of equity in small rural communities, which I also represent--
we've got a big variety in my district--and one of the
challenges that I have and we shared with Mayor Landrieu as
well is just the lack of capacity to apply for competitive
grants. Competitive grants that are called rural transportation
grants, and they just aren't at the capacity to get their arms
around that. Has the DOT thought through this problem? Because
I know Mayor Landrieu has heard of this issue throughout the
implementation phase.
Secretary Buttigieg. Yes. At least two things I can point
to that we're doing about this. It resembles my own experience
as a mayor who led a city that didn't necessarily have the
resources for a robust Federal affairs team, and their
community is much smaller than my hometown of South Bend trying
to get access here.
The first is to make the processes simpler on the front
end. So, when you see us taking a step like a combined Notice
of Funding Opportunity that rolls INFRA, and Mega, and the
Rural Surface Transportation program into one, part of what
we're trying to do is just have literally fewer pages of paper
out there in the process so that it is easier to navigate for
an applicant of any size.
The second thing is to make sure that we're proactively
engaging project sponsors or would-be project sponsors, and
where possible--and we do have some funding for this; there's
always going to be more demand than we can support--the kind of
direct technical assistance that can help walk them through the
process, especially when you're looking at a first-time
applicant.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thanks, and then on workforce
issues and equity, perhaps you've touched on this with
discussion on DBE, and you have in some respects, but are there
other steps that DOT is taking to ensure that minority-owned
businesses are in fact considered for and selected for these
projects?
Secretary Buttigieg. Quite a few, and part of how I view
this is that it's not only a matter of fairness, although
that's reason enough, but also the volume and the pace of
infrastructure work we're taking on as a country is going to
demand everything that we can provide as a country as far as
talent, entrepreneurial talents, and skilled work. And what
that means is that we can't succeed if we leave any talent on
the table.
And so, as you look across our programs, some of them can
directly support workforce development in a way that we think
benefits both labor and DBE ownership. Some of it doesn't
require that, but certainly leaves space for project sponsors
to do so, and the effects are----
Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. Can I stop you
there? Because I want to respect the 5-minute rule before the
chair makes me respect the 5-minute rule. But I'll follow up
with your staff with the rest of the answer. Thanks.
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman.
Representative Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, just to follow up a
little bit on Congressman Crawford's questions. My
understanding is the Federal Transit Administration recently
put out guidance through at least one of their regional offices
that suggests transit grant recipients, through OMB
regulations, are allowed to use Federal resources to help cover
material cost increases for previously negotiated contracts.
Have similar memos gone out for highway and other offices?
Secretary Buttigieg. I would have to get back to you on
mode by mode how each of the different operating
administrations is trying to accommodate those things that are
taking place, but----
Mr. Gibbs [interrupting]. But you can concur that the
Federal Transit Administration has done that?
Secretary Buttigieg. I'll make sure, but I certainly don't
know anything that would contradict that.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. Thank you. Also, do you agree that investing
in Federal port infrastructure and improving efficiency,
including automation and new technologies, would help improve
port operations and relieve supply chain bottlenecks?
Secretary Buttigieg. We strongly believe in funding port
infrastructure that will make a positive difference to both the
port's ability to move goods and to the surrounding
communities.
Mr. Gibbs. Are you aware that there are currently
restrictions on using Federal dollars for these purposes, for
automation and basically automation infrastructure?
Secretary Buttigieg. So, as you likely know, there is a lot
of difference of opinion and difference in the research on
where automation in fact yields to productivity increases, and
where it doesn't, and there's quite a bit of skepticism about
how that could work in the U.S. context.
That said, there are so many things that we can invest in,
and are investing in that unquestionably benefit the efficiency
and the throughput of ports. For example, with the Port
Infrastructure Development Program in the last round, we sent
about $52 million to Long Beach. That's going to allow them to
build about 10,000 additional feet of on-dock rail, which helps
you without having to wait for a chassis or have the truck go
between, and get those containers on their way, and we're going
to continue to look for ways to support throughput, again,
hopefully in a fashion that also benefits the surrounding
community.
Mr. Gibbs. Well, I would think that sometimes there's some
resistance to automation and new technologies because of labor
issues and all that, and now that you think of it, if
historically, where would be in the agricultural community if
we resisted automation? Where would we be if we protected the
phone operators back in the 1970s when the new technologies
that came up out from that? So, I think historically technology
is--and maybe jobs have gone by the wayside, but the result is
different, new jobs, and higher paying jobs for improving the
standard of living.
So, I think that's a thing to keep in the back of your head
that automation is sometimes tough, but it's usually the
correct way to go, at least historically and across many
sectors of our economy.
You may be aware that pipelines are among the safest and
most efficient, environmentally friendly ways to transport
energy. Yet, I'm concerned about this administration's anti-
energy agenda at a time when gas prices and inflation have
reached all-time highs. Congress back in 2020 passed bipartisan
legislation to boost pipeline safety and efficiency. Can you
please provide us an update on the implementation of this law
that was passed 2 years ago?
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. PHMSA has been hard at work
making sure the provisions of the PIPES Act are enacted, both
in terms of making sure that we have the right kind of staffing
to support it, and the rulemakings that are called for in the
legislation. I would be happy to get you more details, but the
bottom line is that we will continue to meet our safety
mission, whatever other policy questions are being debated, and
PHMSA has taken a number of steps to, I believe, enhance--even
just in the time since the legislation was passed--to enhance
our already very strong track record in terms of pipe safety
oversight.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, and I realize in your purview, safety is in
your jurisdiction, but I don't think there's been really any
pipelines permitted in this administration, might not come
under your purview, might come under the Army Corps or the EPA,
but restricting this pipeline permitting access expiration in
the United States is limiting our exploration and our ability
to produce more energy, because if you don't have the pipelines
to put the natural gas in, they can't produce the wells. And
so, I'll just make that comment.
Also, the Maritime Administration permits for deepwater
ports, that's the only thing they grant permits for. There's
been a release of an environmental impact statement, and I
understand the first release of the draft environmental impact
statement was to provide multiple language information to
nearby communities, even though such information had already
been provided in the original DEIS.
I guess I'd ask this administration if they meet all their
permits, the applicant, if all the environmental requirements
are met, will the Maritime Administration provide a positive
record of decision on this?
Secretary Buttigieg. So, once applicants have fully
satisfied the requirements of EIS, then the deepwater port can
be licensed. I can tell you in the last 3 years, MARAD has
engaged over 20 companies with interest in developing new
facilities with 8 deepwater export applications that came in
during that time. I believe two of those were withdrawn, but
the remaining six are under review, and we'll review them
according to the responsibilities that MARAD has under the law.
Mr. Gibbs. I just hope that they meet the requirements, and
they are approved. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. I will now turn to
Representative Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Secretary, I
thank you for announcing the funding opportunity for a Railroad
Crossing Elimination Program. Funding is incredibly important
to my district, and the money for the grade separations is
significant, but just as significant is the effective
coordination between Government sponsors and the private
railroad companies who can hold up those projects with
excessive requirements, unnecessary private railroad
improvements on taxpayer dime, and delays. How is the
Department ensuring that railroad companies and all
stakeholders are effective partners to quickly implement
railroad grade separation projects?
Secondly, I greatly appreciate the administration's
Justice40 initiative that directs 40 percent of Federal funds
to disadvantaged communities. Is the Justice40 initiative being
implemented for all your grant programs, and in particular,
your transit Capital Investment Grant Program?
And one more question. I'm very proud to have Foothill
Transit in my district, leading the Nation for more than a
decade in electric and fuel zero-emission buses, and has
invited you to visit the facilities.
I extended an invitation to you personally in the letter
that I just handed you. Since zero-emission buses are new
technology, how is FTA working with experienced agencies like
Foothill Transit to ensure information and best practices are
shared among transit agencies as they receive infrastructure
law funding for zero-emission buses?
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. I'll try to--let me try to
take those in reverse order. So, with regard to zero-emission
buses, we recognize there are a lot of agencies like Foothill
Transit that already have quite a bit of expertise in this
regard, and we want to make sure that that's taken on board.
So, FTA is doing a lot of convening through efforts like
the Transit Vehicle Innovation Deployment Centers initiative to
try to bring the different players together, and actually I
believe Foothill Transit was among the agencies on an advisory
panel in a position to share their expertise on this, because
we do need to make sure that more agencies understand and are
equipped to take advantage of the funding, and to make these
clean vehicle deployments that are going to be so important for
their future.
With regard to Justice40, I can tell you that the entire
$20 billion per year programming of the FTA supports equity in
transportation, and this can take different forms, and I think
the formal criteria and guidance related to Justice40 is still
being framed up at the interagency level, but we're certainly
not waiting to take actions that are going to meet those goals,
knowing that so many of the communities that are overburdened
and underserved are also those that stand to gain the most from
having excellent, convenient, accessible, and clean
transportation brought to them, and the economic opportunity
that comes with it.
And then on the rail grade crossings, this is an issue that
we're hearing about from communities in every part of the
country of every size, and we consider it very important, not
only from a safety perspective, of course, but also as we
discuss issues like more fluid movement of goods and cargo.
This is certainly a concern, because those at-grade crossings
are associated with slow orders and other measures for safety
purposes that wind up impacting the fluidity of the overall
system.
So, we're very pleased to have now the dedicated Railroad
Crossing Elimination Program in addition to other rail funding
like CRISI that can help in this regard, and FRA is very
actively engaging all of the different players, communities,
railroads, and any other interested stakeholders on how to make
sure that this can be effectively used. It can be challenging
because sometimes there is an infrastructure owner that is
different than the project sponsor. You imagine a city coming
to the table wanting to get rid of an at-grade crossing needing
to engage with a railroad that actually has the asset. And so,
we're doing what we can to try to make sure that there's the
right communication so that these applicants can be successful.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much. The fact is that the
railroads have been good partners in my area, but they still
don't provide the funding necessary to complete the project, or
at least be a partner with the State and the Fed. And then on
the grant program, how about the transit Capital Investment
Grant Program?
Secretary Buttigieg. Sorry, what about the Capital
Investment Grant Program?
Mrs. Napolitano. That was on the Justice40.
Secretary Buttigieg. Yes. So, I can tell you that the whole
intent of the transit programming writ-large is of course to
connect people to opportunity into where they need to be, and
the kinds of communities that Justice40 is looking at are often
those that stand to gain a great deal by the work that's being
done in CIG. And so, again what I'd emphasize is, even in those
areas that may or may not fit the formal or technical
definition of Justice40, they will already--certainly CIG will
already have criteria that are relevant to the spirit of that
program.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady. Now, Representative
Webster.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you, Chair, and thank you,
Secretary, for appearing. We really appreciate it. As you know,
the revenue from the Highway Trust Fund is not sufficient to
meet the transportation needs. And so, over the years since
maybe 2007-2008, we've put money in, and that money is being
spent, and it's going to be spent up again here in the next few
years, and we'll need to do it again. And CBO estimates that in
maybe 2026 or 2027, we'll run out of money again.
The administration though is focusing on promoting electric
cars and has championed a gas tax holiday. Those are things
that take away revenue, not add to it. So, my question is, do
you have something that wouldn't negatively affect revenue that
we can kind of put our teeth into that would rebuild what's
there, including maybe something that would tax electric
vehicles?
Secretary Buttigieg. So, first of all, I do want to
emphasize that when the President asked Congress to consider
the gas tax holiday, he called for a means of doing it that
would hold harmless the Highway Trust Fund, but certainly the
larger point is well taken, that as we continue the transition
toward electric vehicles and zero-emitting vehicles, it means
that we're going to need to have other means for filling gaps
in the Highway Trust Fund.
Up until now, Congress has been prepared to do that through
general fund transfers. That's certainly a legitimate way to
fund our highway needs. It's not the only way, and it's not
consistent with the past practice of a user-pays principle.
How to enact an alternative? These are the kinds of things
that the FAST Act law provided for exploring in the pilot; some
States have begun doing that, and pursuant to IIJA, there can
be more work in that regard, too. I think that will get us more
technical insights, but I think ultimately this will be not a
technical decision, but a policy one, and that largely comes
down to whether Congress will continue to hold to the user-pays
principle, or seek an alternative means for funding.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Have you considered some sort of
toll facility which every vehicle would pay if they had to go
through the toll booth? Is that something that's an option?
Secretary Buttigieg. I grew up in northern Indiana where I-
80/90 is funded as a toll road, and certainly that's something
I think we're accustomed to on certain heavily trafficked
roads, especially if they were built or maintained with that in
mind. I think it's tougher to imagine how that could be
implemented on a widespread basis. And so, unless we could
think of a non-intrusive way to do that, I think it'll be
always something that's restricted to more specific and high
traffic points, bridges and certain highways, than something
that could answer how the road system writ large is funded.
Mr. Webster of Florida. So, how about using private money
to do that?
Secretary Buttigieg. Using highway money to erect the toll
booths?
Mr. Webster of Florida. No, private money, private
investment.
Secretary Buttigieg. Oh, sorry, I thought you said highway
money.
We do think that there continues to be a place for private
investment, and if you look at some of the work our Build
America Bureau has done to unlock some of that private value,
it holds a lot of promise. I would be less confident that that
could answer a question as large scale as how to keep the
Highway Trust Fund in order.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. Representative Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Secretary, I thank you
for coming before the committee and for your infrastructure
remarks, recognizing the outstanding service of our chair, of
our former chair, Mr. Young, who was a dear friend, and the
work of this committee.
Last time I think we spoke, you called me about supporting
the bill from the Senate, and I told you I couldn't do it,
because I was supportive of my chairman and the hard work of
this committee. Forget about all that. I voted for the bill.
We had a hearing last month on highlighting the impact of
outdated road design and the highway safety crisis. We learned
that speed is a factor, both in increasing the risk of crashes
and the severity. Certain high-crash locations are responsible
for a disproportionate number of fatalities and serious
injuries. Memphis, unfortunately, was recently rated the third
worst city for pedestrian injuries and accidents.
Senator Markey and I got the Complete Streets Act passed
and part of it got into the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act, and so, a certain percentage of money has to go toward
those projects. How will Complete Streets planning initiatives
included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act change
the way we design our roadways and prioritize safety and access
for all users over speed?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, as you correctly point out,
speed is a factor in so many of the roadway fatalities that we
experience in the U.S., and having an approach to road design
that recognizes not only what's in the car, not only who is in
the car, but the road itself and how it's designed play a major
role in safety. We think we have a safety responsibility to
support Complete Streets, and indeed, there are a number of
provisions in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, as you know,
that encourage State, Tribal, and local governments to develop
Complete Streets standards or policies and plans that
prioritize Complete Streets projects.
I would point also to the economic benefits of that.
Certainly it was my own experience in my hometown where we
applied what you could think of as a Complete Streets treatment
to a downtown thoroughfare and saw a lot of benefit to small
business from there being more foot traffic because people felt
safer walking along the street once it had gone through those
upgrades.
We have delivered the report to Congress that was called
for, called ``Moving to a Complete Streets Design Model,''
which offers the Federal Highway Administration's guidance and
identifies some of the resources that can be helpful here. We
don't aim to prescribe all of the details about what makes for
a good Complete Street, and we know that local jurisdictions
will come up with their own ideas, but we wanted to provide a
framework and provide support. And I would also emphasize among
other funding sources that would be a legitimate application
for Complete Streets. Certainly with the Safe Streets and Roads
for All Program, which is $1 billion annually over the next 5
years. I think that's one area where a well-considered Complete
Streets plan will score quite well.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. I just hope that you would
concentrate or put specific focus on road corridors that are
the most serious problems based on high risk. And of course,
that would include Memphis, but I know you'll do that.
Kind of go to a lightning round here. Passenger rail is
important for the people in my city and my State. We'd like to
connect Memphis and Nashville. Those are two of the iconic
large cities in the South that are not connected, while most
are. Are there funds that are in the bill that would help
Tennessee pursue intercity passenger rail service between
Nashville and Memphis?
Secretary Buttigieg. Certainly, the bill providing for
greater investment in passenger rail than we've seen since the
inception of Amtrak certainly contains funds where I would
expect that anyone with a vision for intercity rail like that
will be interested in applying, and we'll be interested to see
what----
Mr. Cohen [interrupting]. I hope you'll help. I don't know
if you're a fan of country music or not. But country music says
there's more songs about leaving Nashville and more songs about
going to Memphis than anything else. So, it'd be an important
corridor. Airports are important, too. And unfortunately, we do
not have a direct flight from Memphis to Nashville any longer
because we're no longer a hub city. We applied for an airport
grant, and I appreciate your nonpartisanship in giving $5
million to Chattanooga and getting that money out. But it
detoured and didn't get to Memphis. Can you give me some kind
of an idea about what Memphis might be able to do to receive a
second-round funding? Our airport is older. It needs a seismic
zone with the New Madrid Fault and the possible earthquakes.
And we have a very poor population and a low income. Memphis is
an ideal city to get help. Can you give me some idea about how
Memphis might receive that?
Secretary Buttigieg. Yes. There are several funds that have
become available through the infrastructure law. In addition to
the ongoing availability, the Airport Improvement Program. And
so, would certainly welcome applications from those applicants
who didn't make it in the last round of the Airport Terminal
Program. We've got several more rounds to go. And it was
certainly oversubscribed. We'd love to fund as many of those
projects as we can, as well as depending--that's where most of
the passenger-facing investments would be, out of the Airport
Terminal Program. But for other improvements, from tarmac, to
apron, to runway, to tower, there are a lot of additional
resources now available, thanks to the infrastructure law that
could also be areas where they might want to apply.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you. My time has expired, but I want to
re-thank you for coming to Memphis when the bridge closed down,
for visiting FedEx, and for getting part of the underrides bill
and implementing it in the bipartisan act. Thank you, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, gentlemen. Representative Massie.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Buttigieg,
I've been driving an electric car for 10 years, and I've had
solar panels for 15 years. And I'm really bullish on technology
and the way it could help make our country energy independent,
or more energy independent. But I'm really alarmed at, sort of,
the naivete of those who are promoting rapid adoption of these
technologies with our existing infrastructure. President Biden
signed a nonbinding Executive order stating that 50 percent of
vehicles sold in the United States should be electric by 2030.
Do you support that?
Secretary Buttigieg. Yes.
Mr. Massie. And he also said that by 2035, that 100 percent
of the Federal Government fleet should be electric. Do you
support that?
Secretary Buttigieg. Yes.
Mr. Massie. So, which uses more electricity? We're talking
about residential electricity here. A refrigerator, when it's
running, or an electric car, when it's charging in your garage?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I would expect a car.
Mr. Massie. Would you say it uses twice as much or 25 times
as much?
Secretary Buttigieg. I would think closer to 25 times as
much, yes.
Mr. Massie. It's actually 50, at the instantaneous moment.
But over the course of a year, if I take the numbers from the
U.S. Department of Energy about the average household, how many
vehicles they own and how far they drive, over the course of a
year, an American household would use 25 times as much
electricity for their electric cars as they would for their
refrigerator--if they had 100 percent adoption, the average
family has two vehicles, and this would be if the average
family had two electric vehicles. Do you think it would strain
the grid if everybody plugged in 25 refrigerators in every
household?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, if we didn't make any upgrades
to the grid, sure. I mean, if we had yesterday's grid with
tomorrow's cars, it's not going to work. It's one of the
reasons why we believe that infrastructure includes electrical
infrastructure and argued for that to be included as it,
thankfully, was in the bipartisan law.
Mr. Massie. Do you think by 2030, which is when Biden says
50 percent of cars sold should be electric, do you think the
grid will be capable of handling electric cars?
Secretary Buttigieg. It's going to need to be. And we're
working with the Department of Energy every day. We've
established a Joint Office of Energy and Transportation to map
out some of the needs. Obviously, some of this gets outside of
my lane. And we've been discussing with, for example, the
truckstops that are looking at what their power needs would
need to be at an interchange, where today, they're mainly
filling up on gas in order to accommodate that. And then, as
you mentioned, a lot of the scenario for this is also
residential. But it's also worth pointing out that, while a
typical driver who adopts electric is using more electricity,
at the end of the day, they're using less energy because of the
efficiency benefits of getting that energy produced a utility--
--
Mr. Massie [interrupting]. Problem is, we don't have the
capacity to produce that energy. You aptly used the word,
``need.'' You could say, ``want'' as well. There's needs and
wants that make this fantasy work by 2030, but the reality is,
the capability is not going to be there. The average household
uses 17 percent of their electricity for air conditioning. And
that would mean the average household uses 1,870 kilowatthours
per year for air conditioning. If that average household
plugged in electric cars, do you know how much more electricity
they would use, in comparison to the air conditioning that air
conditions their whole house?
Secretary Buttigieg. No, but again, I would emphasize it
will be less energy overall----
Mr. Massie [interrupting]. Let me help you with that,
first, before we go on, because the numbers are important. It
would take four times as much electricity to charge the average
household's cars as the average household uses on air
conditioning. You think that could be--so, if we reach the goal
by 2030, that Biden has of 50 percent adoption instead of 100
percent adoption, that means the average household would use
twice as much electricity charging one of their cars as they
would use for all of the air conditioning that they use for the
entire year. Do you think this could contribute to rolling
blackouts and brownouts in areas of the country where air
conditioning is basically considered essential?
Secretary Buttigieg. Not if we prepare. Look, the fact that
people who have electric vehicles are going to use more
electricity can't be a reason to give up the idea that America
is inferior to the other countries that have figured this out.
It just doesn't sit well with us in the administration, and
that's why we're investing in a better grid.
Mr. Massie. In the time that I have left, let me say, I'm
not saying we shouldn't prepare. I told you at the beginning of
this, I'm bullish on this technology. But the numbers and the
rate of adoption has been developed using political science,
not engineering. They're impractical, and if we blindly follow
these goals that Biden has set out, it will cause pain and
suffering for the middle class. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank you, gentleman. Representative
Johnson?
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing. And good to see you, Secretary Buttigieg.
Thank you for your time and your testimony. For decades,
communities of color and low-income communities have been ill
served by our transportation system. Our communities face a
higher burden of pollution and fewer affordable safe
transportation options. One means to address this is to build
more high-quality transit lines, such as the Metropolitan
Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority's--MARTA's--proposal for the
Southlake Bus Rapid Transit project, which will serve an area
made up of 93 percent minority individuals. The Southlake BRT
project is in the pipeline for the Federal Capital Investment
Grant Program. The Federal Transit Administration is currently
developing new guidance for the CIG Program, which will
significantly influence which projects qualify and receive
funding in the future. Mr. Secretary, how will your Department
ensure this new guidance, and the CIG Program generally, will
support equity and deliver real results for underserved
communities?
Secretary Buttigieg. We're certainly committed to
considering equity and other important criteria that belong
within the framework of our transit policy. And when it comes
to CIG, which is among the largest competitive Federal grant
programs, we recognize there's a lot at stake.
The President's budget requests $2.9 billion in general
funds for CIG. And additional funds in the amount of $1.6
billion are provided through the advanced appropriations that
came in the IIJA. So, that's a total of $4.5 billion to work
with. This is also a program that requires projects to go
through an extensive process to ensure that they are going to
effectively use those taxpayer dollars.
And the evaluation criteria include things like
consideration of affordable housing and the transit corridor,
credit for projects that serve transit-dependent populations,
and incentives to use alternative fuel vehicles and build
environmentally friendly facilities. So, you have my commitment
that, as we continue with the process of updating the CIG
Program regulation to make sure that the guidance reflects the
changes that came by way of the infrastructure law, and the
initial changes are out for notice and comment. We'll continue
to consider these and other important values and criteria, to
the extent that the law provides for us to do so.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. And Mr. Secretary, the
House recently passed an amendment to the National Defense
Authorization Act that I authored, which relates to the
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program applicable to
highway, transit, and safety programs. The amendment eliminates
the gross receipts cap in effect for DBEs working on surface
transportation projects.
This amendment ensures that the definition of a DBE is
consistent across DOT programs, as it brings surface
transportation in line with how the FAA defines a DBE and
ensures that DOT follows SBA definitions for a small business.
Do you support the elimination of the gross receipts cap for
surface transportation programs? And also, what additional
steps is your Department taking to promote maximum
participation by DBEs in DOT programs?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, first of all, yes, we support
that step. We recognize that the SBA's governmentwide small
business size standards are more accurate and consistent in
terms of measuring a small business. And so, we think this can
address something that we hear very often as a concern from DBE
owners who, as one business leader put it to me, feel that they
are sometimes viewed in such a way that they become too small
to be big and too big to be small.
And we are within days of publishing our own notice of
proposed rulemaking with a number of updates and amendments to
our program rules to modernize and improve the DBE program. We
want it to be more user-friendly while maintaining the highest
standards of program integrity. And look forward to getting
public comment on that proposed rule, as soon as it's out. I'll
also say, in addition to the formal requirements and rules
pursuant to the program, we're also just doing a lot of
engagement and communication, making sure the DBE community
knows about the opportunities that are coming and understands
where to go in order to become more involved. And we'll be
engaging the incumbent larger firms as well about what we
consider to be the importance of them being good partners with
these smaller and disadvantaged companies, too.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, gentleman. Representative Perry.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, thanks for
being here. I'm sure you know, folks, where I live, my bosses,
my constituents, are paying about 80 percent more for gasoline
than they were when President Biden became the President. And I
think the response--I mean, I think it's fair to say that even
you have implied that they should buy an electric vehicle and
absolve themselves of that 80 percent increase per gallon.
Just looking at Kelley Blue Book, the price of an EV is
about $55,000. Now, that doesn't include--so, it's actually
more than that because there's a $7,500 per car subsidy, paid
for by about $48 billion in taxes on the same people on that
car. So, it's closer to about $60,000. That's about $20,000
more than a gas-driven passenger car. About $40,000 more than
the average compact car.
At the same time, I'm sure you probably also realized that
the average Pennsylvanian pays about $170 a month in
electricity. And that doesn't include the 10 to 15 percent that
it's just gone up. So, that's an old number. So, it's actually
more than that. And based on Mr. Massie's numbers, which I
don't doubt at all, if they could afford the electric vehicle
and plug it in, we're talking about another $90-$100 a month in
electric costs. I'm wondering what the administration and you
are doing other than subsidizing--other than subsidizing--to
lower the cost. They are even paying more for gas, 80 percent,
or they are paying more for electricity to the tune of
essentially doubling their electricity bill. Like how is this
getting better for my bosses? And what do you plan to do about
that cost other than subsidies?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I am very glad you asked that
question. First of all, I want to be clear. Nobody I know,
certainly not me, thinks that all or even most Americans can
easily afford electric vehicles. That said, I'm struck by this
$55,000 number that keeps going around. I knew this might come
up, so, I just pulled a few of the latest prices. A Chevy Bolt,
so, an American-made 2022 EV is $26,595. If you want a pickup
truck like a Chevy Silverado EV or Ford F-150 Lightning, the
starting prices of those are $39,900 and $39,974, respectively.
We've also begun to see----
Mr. Perry [interrupting]. Is that pre-subsidy or post-
subsidy?
Secretary Buttigieg. I think it depends on the automaker
because some of them have gone through the cap for the $7,500
and some have not.
Mr. Perry. Does that include State subsidies as well?
Secretary Buttigieg. I don't think so. No.
Mr. Perry. OK.
Secretary Buttigieg. And look. That is the new car. So, the
first time I got a plug-in car, for example, Chasten and I got
one. It was $14,000. It had about 15,000 miles on it. It was a
C-Max. So, it was a combo, plug-in hybrid. But what we are
seeing in terms of the dynamics now is we are close to the
point and may actually be there on certain models and under
certain circumstances where the extent to which your car
payment would go up is actually already outweighed by the
extent to which your gas bill would go down, even factoring in
the cost of electricity. Now, again, that depends on what
electricity----
Mr. Perry [interrupting]. So, you're saying the market is
bringing it down. Look. I got my numbers from Kelley Blue Book.
So----
Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. Are those this year's
numbers?
Mr. Perry. What's that?
Secretary Buttigieg. Would those be this year's numbers?
Mr. Perry. Actually, last year. But I don't know that
anything, especially used cars, have actually gone down in
price. But my other concern is, that I'm sure if you're not
aware that you should be aware that since 2010, so, essentially
over 12 years now, we've closed over 550 power generation
stations, which is about 102 gigawatts. And we are scheduled to
retire by 2025--so, just a couple years--17 gigawatts of coal-
fired capacity. At the same time, we are asking Americans
through subsidies and through their purchases to pay for China,
who has--I think you wouldn't argue--80 to 90 percent market
share of everything that goes into an electric vehicle--
right?--into an electric vehicle at the same time we are
essentially reducing power and using Thomas' numbers, which I
think are correct, we are going to increase the grid
requirement by at least 50 percent, which none of that really
works out.
You look at a country like Ghana who is shutting the lights
off now because they followed this model that we are following
right now. What's the administration, and what are you doing to
make it easier and more affordable to mine critical minerals in
the United States to support this industry?
Secretary Buttigieg. One thing we have been working on with
the Department of Energy is better sourcing of some of the
elements that go into batteries, for example, ideally in the
United States and, if not in the United States, then in
geopolitically friendlier territory. Now, some of this isn't
just mining. Some of it is actually the refining capacity,
which is to China's advantage, and we have got to change that.
I guess our view is we shouldn't accept that as a given.
Mr. Perry. China refines 90 percent of the manganese. Are
we going to bring that to the United States?
Secretary Buttigieg. We would love to bring that----
Mr. DeFazio [interrupting]. We are over time.
Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Refinement capacity more
to U.S. and friendly countries.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you.
At this point, I will ask questions, and Rodney Davis will
ask questions, and then we are going to recess for votes. So,
Mr. Secretary, I just want to clarify the issue of the guidance
which caused a bit of a stir when you issued the guidance on
Building a Better America, we called it ``fix it first'' in the
legislation that passed out of the House. And let's just get
straight on the record. Who makes the decision how to invest
apportioned highway dollars? Is it the Feds or the State DOTs?
Secretary Buttigieg. It's up to the State DOTs.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Does anything in the guidance change that?
Secretary Buttigieg. No.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Have you proposed to eliminate eligibility
for certain types of highway construction projects?
Secretary Buttigieg. No.
Mr. DeFazio. Does DOT propose to take away formula or
discretionary money from States who add new highway lane
capacity?
Secretary Buttigieg. No.
Mr. DeFazio. Are you forcing any States to build transit or
active transportation projects over highway projects?
Secretary Buttigieg. Forcing? No.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. I do remember your memorable exchange when
Mrs. Capito, a former member of this committee, asked you
before the Senate why you were doing this, and you said,
``Ma'am, because it's good policy,'' which I support. We want
people just to think these things through. It is not a mandate
but think about it as you move forward instead of doing the
same thing again and again, which doesn't work. We induce more
demand. We build more lane-miles. We induce more demand. We
build more lane-miles, and we end up with the same congestion
in the end.
And then secondly, there has been some controversy about
your proposed rulemaking on tracking greenhouse gas emissions
from on-road sources. Now, I remember the day when States were
allowed to set negative safety targets. Now you have
performance management rules in areas such as asset management,
bridge and pavement conditions, and safety. Has requiring
States to set targets and measure their own progress toward
these desirable goals helped focus attention in investment?
Secretary Buttigieg. We think it has. I would describe that
as good policy, too.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Then just on the exchange about EVs and
that, I don't know what we are going to do with all the
mechanics. And that is something we have to start thinking
about. But the life-cycle cost of an EV is significantly less
than a fossil fuel vehicle. When it was penciled out for the
post office, unfortunately, the current Postmaster General
doesn't agree. They would have saved a phenomenal amount of
money even though there was more upfront cost if they had moved
to an EV fleet. So, I think that's something that needs to be
taken into account. So, I thank you. I thank you for your
testimony, and now I turn to Mr. Davis.
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Mr.
Secretary, great to see you again. It was great seeing you at
DCA last week and had a chance to chat with you there. I wish I
had seen you when Congressman Bost and I were on our never-
ending journey to try and get out of LaGuardia last night. But
we didn't get a chance to do that. But it is always good to
talk transportation. And we appreciate you being here today. I
would mention I was going to ask you about the policy on using
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law resources for Building a Better
America that Chairman DeFazio asked you about.
You were pretty clear in your response to him. I hope that
clarification is given to our States because there is still
some confusion. We have them reaching out to us, wondering what
your intention was. So, thank you for that clarification. But
moving that out to the States would be beneficial too.
IIJA also includes my provision I helped craft here in the
House, the One Federal Decision Act. And that would streamline
Federal environmental reviews, as you know. I have talked to
Mayor Landrieu about this. Many of my colleagues are worried
about getting those dollars out the door. You can't do that
without streamlining the review process. What's going on there?
The deadlines, including for consulting agencies regarding
categorical exclusions--can you please update me on
implementing One Federal Decision?
Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks. Yes. We recognize the
importance of a swift and prompt process as things are going
through, especially Federal requirements on permitting. And as
the earlier exchange highlighted, that is even more important
in an environment with inflation adding to the consequence of
things taking any longer than they have to. With regard to the
consulting that you mentioned, our Department got to work right
away on that. It effectively allows one department to engage
another department's categorical exclusions when they qualify.
So, as called for in the legislation, the DOT completed a
review of our categorical exclusions. We found four areas where
we could collaborate with other departments, accelerating the
process on projects. Especially they are helpful with things
like post-disaster resilience. And that's, of course, just one
of the requirements pursuant to the One Federal Decision
provisions in the law. We are committed to making sure that we
address all of them.
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Sure. I would envision, if
the majority changes here in the House, any legislation that is
passed into law would likely have more environmental review
provisions like One Federal Decision. So, implementing it with
IIJA now could be a barometer in how you do it in the future
too.
Mr. Secretary, Amtrak has laid out some ambitious goals.
Last year, it released its ``Amtrak Connects Us'' plan that
outlined a 15-year strategy for expansion that would, according
to it, connect dozens of city pairs. Of the corridors mentioned
in its 15-year strategy, are you aware that any are ready to
move forward and be put into action?
Secretary Buttigieg. So, if I am recalling correctly, the
corridors are laid out in such a way that some of them are an
expansion of service on existing physically constructed lines.
Others would require more work. I don't have handy the timeline
of which could be ready by when. But my understanding is it is
a mix of things that could be done relatively quickly and
things that would take more extensive work.
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. So, when you say ``relatively
quickly,'' has Amtrak or anyone at your agency done any
environmental reviews for some of these proposed routes?
Secretary Buttigieg. So, depending on the route, we would
have to see if it would qualify. I think, often, it could
qualify for a CE because it would be along existing right-of-
way. But I don't know that we have gotten as far as any new
right-of-way being proposed and ready for an EIS or something
like that.
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. So, if you don't have new
right-of-way, you probably haven't reached any agreements with
landowners on any of the proposals?
Secretary Buttigieg. I haven't seen it advance to that
level yet.
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. If you have, will you have
your team get back to us?
Secretary Buttigieg. Sure.
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Also, I know you get lots of
letters of support for the RAISE grants. Clearly, I know you
think mine are the best. So, I want to just remind you of a
couple that I have sent to your agency, city of Decatur in
Macon County, has the Brush College Road and Faries Parkway
project. Springfield, high-speed rail project between Chicago
and St. Louis. Springfield has done a great job in leveraging
Federal resources to actually combine two tracks into one in
and around Springfield. They have two more usable segments, one
RAISE grant and one MPDG grant application.
Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis with the
multimodal freight yard expansion in Venice. McLean County,
Route 66 bike and pedestrian trail, and in Edwardsville, we
have the Goshen Road and Liberty Trail multimodal
transportation improvement projects. I will get you a list of
those so you don't have to write them down. I would appreciate
your consideration and any updates. Thank you. I yield back.
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. Since we have votes on
the floor of the House, the committee shall stand in recess,
and we will return and start again as quickly as possible.
[Recess.]
Mr. Stanton [presiding]. I call the meeting back to order,
and I will take the chair's prerogative and ask a few questions
to our guest, Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
being here. It is great to see you again. My fellow recovering
mayor, there.
Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport received a build grant for its
Northside rail expansion project to allow the airport to meet
its growing needs. However, as you know, a series of challenges
stemming from various departmental requirements have hindered
progress, and as a result, the airport is seeking to scale the
project to focus solely on the 24th Street overpass. Because
the obligation date for the grant is rapidly approaching, the
airport is at high risk of losing these critical Federal funds.
Mr. Secretary, this project is important to the city of
Phoenix and to Sky Harbor's future growth. Will your Department
support our efforts to extend the period of eligibility for the
grant and work with the airport on this modified project, so it
does not lose these critical Federal funds?
Secretary Buttigieg. So, our goal, of course, is for every
grant recipient to succeed when funds are awarded. In this
case, it was 2019 funding. I believe the issue here had to do
with meeting the obligation deadline with the proposed change
in scope that they had, but we would be happy to follow up and
engage your staff to explore anything we can do to be
supportive in the context.
Mr. Stanton. We really appreciate working closely with you
to make sure we retain those critically important Federal
funds.
Arizona is one of the fastest growing States in the Nation,
and we have real transportation needs. To meet these demands of
our growing population, we must invest in our interstate
highways.
Interstate 10 is a key corridor connecting Phoenix and
Tucson, yet there is still a large section that is only two
lanes, creating traffic bottlenecks for the more than 110,000
vehicles per day that utilize it, and we need new highways to
move commerce and people like Interstate 11 to link the last
two metropolitan areas in the country, Phoenix and Las Vegas,
that are not connected by an interstate.
Arizona has committed resources to the next phase for the
environmental work for Interstate 11 and is investing $400
million in Interstate 10 to expand capacity to address safety
concerns, improving the movement of goods and people, and to
increase access to the Gila River Indian Community, but Arizona
cannot meet these growing needs on its own. It does need a
strong Federal partner.
Mr. Secretary, do you agree that the Mega Grant Program
should focus on projects of this size and scope like the
expansion of I-10 and construction of I-11 that cannot be done
by the State alone with its annual formula dollars to ensure
the Federal Government is a full partner on these projects that
have impacts on regional and national mobility and commerce?
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. Certainly, the intent of
the Mega Program and our goal in administering it is to make
sure that projects that are too large or too complex in their
scope to be supported through traditional means very much too
large to be shouldered by a State alone get the Federal support
to help see them through.
And so, while taking care, of course, not to prematurely
comment on any application, I would certainly say that we
intend to be supportive of as many qualifying projects as we
can. Knowing that the scales that you see with some of these
efforts are exactly why it was necessary to have an additional
source of funding as provided in IIJA over and above what we
have had to work with in the past.
Mr. Stanton. All right. Mr. Secretary, I want to talk about
one final issue, and that is passenger rail service. Phoenix is
the largest city in the United States without access to
passenger rail service.
As other communities have gained access to passenger rail,
they have experienced significant new economic opportunity, but
my State, unfortunately, has missed out. I am hopeful that will
change, and there is reason for optimism. Amtrak has proposed
connecting Arizona's two large and fast-growing metropolitan
areas, Phoenix and Tucson, with frequent and reliable passenger
rail service.
Mr. Secretary, in your opinion, what can we do to best
support the Tucson-Phoenix West Valley rail line?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, the framework that I think will
allow us to support efforts like this is the fact that the
overall funding for passenger rail includes a set of funds that
is specifically for looking beyond the Northeast Corridor. Of
course, a lot of the attention is on the Northeast Corridor,
but a lot of the need is elsewhere.
So, the FRA has issued a framework for a Corridor
Identification and Development Program. This came out in May,
and the first project pipeline should be issued within a year,
so, next May. And that is one of the places I think would be
natural to look in the context of the Federal-State partnership
that got extraordinarily enhanced funding through the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
I have the pleasure of arriving by train in Flagstaff. I
certainly understand why there is a need and appetite for that
kind of service further south.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. My time is
completed. So, now, the next up will be Congressman Babin.
Dr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Graves. I want to thank you for your time today, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Secretary, despite the administration's best efforts,
oil and gas don't seem to be going anywhere but higher. So, if
you really wanted to help Americans move and move our
transportation goods, I would think that you might want to
consider, right now, working with the President to combat high
gas prices. That is number one.
And doing something doesn't mean blaming President Putin of
Russia or begging the Saudi Crown Prince for relief or calling
the oil and gas companies of America evil and stifling their
production.
However, instead of calling on the President, who is your
boss, to do everything in his power to address skyrocketing gas
prices, I have heard you prioritize the use of taxpayer dollars
to push a message of social justice, fighting racist highways
and equity in transportation.
And I am struggling to square your priorities with the
economic reality that we are facing in the United States today.
You say communities of color are oppressed by racist roads,
while at the same time, you are ignoring the fact that these
same people are being disproportionately oppressed by rising
gas prices. In fact, it is fair to say this administration is
directly burdening low-income families since they are taking
the brunt of massive economic challenges that we are facing
today.
And Mr. Secretary, you have recommended that Americans who
cannot afford a $6 gallon of gas should buy an electric
vehicle, and I am going by the Kelley Blue Book of $55,000; but
even at your statement a while ago at $39,000, I am not sure
how you can justify making that ask to folks who can barely
provide for their families, especially Black and Hispanic
households bringing in an average of $45,000 and $55,000,
respectively, per year. How on earth would they be able to buy
a car that costs almost as much as they make in 1 year?
And I really think that if you want to do something, I
think we need somebody who is serving as Secretary that would
be laser-focused on supporting transportation capabilities and
not pushing social agendas in this country from your position.
We have serious issues going on in the United States,
flight cancellations, worker shortages, sky-high fuel prices,
unprecedented supply chain challenges; but unfortunately, I see
more headlines about your positions and stances on abortion and
on your thoughts on gun rights than I do on plans to improve
our transportation and our infrastructure.
I think Americans want lower gas prices and policies that
will end this inflation and this economic hardship that we have
today, not a woke social agenda such as a billion-dollar pilot
program that you launched last month to combat quote, ``to
combat racially disconnected roads.'' That is $1 billion, and
that is $1 billion right out of the taxpayers' money.
And I think Americans know that your administration, that
the Biden administration, have mismanaged much of our natural
resources and our economic activities and sound policies which
has caused this inflation and pushed us to the verge of a
recession which we are teetering on right now.
And it, certainly, appears to be a dereliction of duty on
the part of many in this administration to favor foreign
nations over our own.
Frankly, I don't think the price of gas is an accident. I
believe that it is part of an agenda designed to fundamentally
change the way our energy and transportation sectors work
together; and unfortunately, that is an agenda that leaves
American superiority in the dust, and it is an agenda that
empowers China and Russia and the Middle East.
And Mr. Secretary, I do have a few questions that I would
like to submit for the record, because we are just about out of
time, and I look forward to your Department's response. I want
to thank you, again, for being here. I appreciate that, and I
think that the American people deserve a lot better than what
we are getting right now with our economy.
And with that, I will yield back.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you. I will just give the Secretary
maybe a minute to respond if you would like to.
Secretary Buttigieg. Sure. I just want to address a factual
inaccuracy in your question that I think is important. You
began by saying that gas prices have only gone up. You will be
relieved to hear that they have gone down every single day for
the last several weeks, and I believe that is connected to the
aggressive actions that the President has taken to reduce gas
prices for Americans.
Of course, we want that price to go lower. It needs to. We
are all feeling the effects at the pump. It is why we don't
agree with the idea that it is OK to let Putin off the hook for
his activities or to let oil and gas executives off the hook
for their stated intention of not increasing production at a
time of extraordinary profits.
I have never suggested that it would be easy for all
Americans to afford electric vehicles; although again, I would
point to the fact that the first EV I ever had was about
$14,000, but we think that policy measures can make it more
affordable, and we hope that Members in this body will
reconsider their opposition to making EVs cheaper through tax
credits.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. Next up will be
Congressman Carson.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for participating today, also representing the great
Hoosier State quite well.
I am curious, Mr. Secretary, I am very proud to represent
Beech Grove, Indiana, which has one of the most important rail
maintenance facilities in the country; and unfortunately, there
have been more reports of efforts to effectively downsize or
outsource maintenance to improve the quality of passenger
service.
We need to improve Amtrak's national fleet. No doubt about
it. I am certain, and I would love for the committee to hear
your efforts, sir, to continue to support and strengthen the
great work that is being done at Beech Grove and oppose any
efforts to outsource this work.
Are there particular updates or insights you can share,
sir?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, for anything concerning the
operational outlook for Amtrak, I would have to refer you to
Amtrak leadership, but I certainly, recognize the importance of
the work that workers at this facility do to keep our trains
operating and operating safely and would welcome any
opportunity to work with your office on providing further
information about how some of the funding coming toward Amtrak
from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act can be applied
in ways that will create a lot of work opportunity as well as a
lot of improvements for passengers, both in terms of the
rolling stock and the maintenance and then, of course, in terms
of the day-to-day to service.
Mr. Carson. Yes, sir. Also, we are looking forward to
working with you on our targeted outreach for the bipartisan
infrastructure bill, especially, through our Congressional
Black Caucus Transportation Braintrust later in the fall.
We want to make sure the historic investments you mentioned
reach disadvantaged communities and minority businesses, and I
know our staffs are working together on those details.
Secondly and lastly, I am very concerned about the
worsening problems of blocked rail crossings, especially in
places like downtown Indianapolis where major intersections
have been blocked for hours. This is a very serious safety
concern that really impacts urban and rural areas. I believe
there has to be more that needs to be done statutorily to
address this issue.
Mr. Secretary, do you agree those additional authorities
could help alleviate the frequency of blocked crossings, and
what more can our committee do to address this issue?
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. We would welcome further
opportunities to work on the issue of railroad crossings, both
the effects that happen when they are blocked, and the safety
concerns that they present, and I want to thank you for the
support for the infrastructure law which provides for the
Railroad Crossing Elimination Program.
We are hard at work getting those dollars ready because we
know that that is going to have a benefit as you have
mentioned, both for rural and urban communities alike, where
people have had that experience of being blocked or delayed by
a crossing; but also, in addition, of course, the economic and
convenience effect, the simple safety dividend of having fewer
such crossings. Highway-rail grade crossing incidents and
trespassing have contributed to 900 deaths in fiscal year 2021
alone.
And so, we want to do everything that we can to prevent
train-vehicle collisions and to use the resources that we have
to create fewer places where those conflicts can happen in the
first place, and would, certainly, appreciate continued
attention from Congress on this.
Mr. Carson. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I yield
back, Chairman.
Mr. Stanton. Next up will be Congressman Graves from
Louisiana.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here, good to see you
again.
Mr. Secretary, you and I have spoken in the past about
strong concerns we have related to how the administration is
prioritizing the allocation of grants, and you have large
programs like INFRA and RAISE, nearly $1 billion each. I
mentioned to you that I had actually written much of the
amendment, had negotiated with other Members the amendment that
puts in law the right criteria for prioritization.
So, when the administration came out and said that racial
equity, climate change, environmental justice, and enhancing
union opportunities were going to be the driving factors, I had
strong concerns because those are things that you all are just
deciding are priorities. They are not things that are actually
in the law.
And so, then, I said, ``OK. Well, we will wait and see how
the grants are actually allocated and decide if this is a
problem or not.''
Mr. Secretary, I will remind you, I represent south
Louisiana. We have one of the most at-risk States for sea rise,
we have one of the highest African-American populations in the
Nation, we are at the bottom of the largest watershed taking in
runoff from Montana, New York, Canada, and everything that is
in that water.
And so, I think, if you go through and look at your
criteria, we should be number 1, 2, and 3--really up there at
the top--yet, when you allocated funds under the INFRA Program,
I think it was 15 percent of the money--15 percent--went to the
State of California. You had about $555 million went to blue
States. Only $350 million went to red States. Under the RAISE
Program, $162 million went to bike and pedestrian paths.
So, I want to ask you a question. If you look at TomTom,
the navigation company's assessment of the most congested areas
in America, they said that New York was number 1, and they said
that Los Angeles was number 2, they said that Miami was number
3.
Do you have any idea what number 4 was or is?
Secretary Buttigieg. I don't.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. So, that would be the metropolis
of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, which puts it ahead of Chicago and
San Francisco and a number of other significantly larger
places.
[Mr. Graves displays a poster.]
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Sixty-two hours a year, time lost
just sitting in traffic. No one would have expected that that
be the case.
So, if you look at the two grant programs, $1 billion each,
you would think that, with us being the State that should be
performing at top under your criteria, top under the criteria
that I wrote because I am incredibly biased, yet, we got one
grant, and this is what it was: $18.5 million to improve fare
collection for New Orleans Regional Transit Authority.
[Mr. Graves displays a poster.]
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. That is kind of hard to
understand, really hard to reconcile. I tried to get them to
find a better snapshot on Google Maps traffic, but it is
normally dark red.
[Mr. Graves displays a poster.]
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. This is the bridge. It is the only
place in America where the interstate funnels down to a single
lane, and it is not because we were innovative and came up with
a great idea that nobody else could think of.
It was idiotic and proof is that we have 62 hours we sit
around and waste in traffic and here is the last slide. It is
just a picture here showing the bridge that looks like a
parking lot because people are just sitting there. This is I-10
connecting California to Florida.
[Mr. Graves displays a poster.]
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. So, I want to ask, how are you
prioritizing, and how can projects like this not get funded
when you are putting money toward bike trails, putting money
toward--let's see--transit systems got $263 million under one
of the programs, over one-quarter of the funds, whenever we
gave transit tens of billions of dollars during the COVID
relief packages. The highways didn't get anything.
So, I guess, I am just trying to understand, what are we
doing, and why aren't we putting money toward true national
priorities that will relieve congestion, reduce emissions,
improve time saved in traffic, and other things that I would
think we would share.
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, our shared priorities I think
are very well served by the things that we funded in the INFRA
Program and in the RAISE Program, but I will acknowledge that
for every dollar we were able to give out, there were probably
about ten that applied.
So, we had a lot of worthy projects, many I am sure from
your district or your State and from all around the country
which qualified, but we were only able to work with the funding
that we had.
Of course, thanks to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act, we have more funding than before which means we will be
able to say ``yes'' more often, and we love nothing more than
saying ``yes'' to a good project or a good program.
I think if we start ranking how much is going to highways,
we would need to include the highway formula funds in that,
right, which is the bulk of the dollars that go to those
purposes, and you have, of course, certain things like CMAQ
that are specifically by the very core of the program directed
toward congestion mitigation; although, there is no reason why
that can't be a benefit coming off something like a RAISE grant
or another piece of legislation.
I will say, one of the things we tried to do is really make
sure that these dollars in INFRA, for example, got around the
country regardless of--certainly, regardless of politics. And
one thing we were proud of is, I think, there was a 25-percent
floor for rural projects. We did almost double that. We were in
the 40s on supporting rural communities.
I know that for every project we are able to say ``yes''
to, there are several more that would be--folks would be
disappointed we couldn't get there.
Secretary Buttigieg. But again, thanks to this----
Mr. Graves of Louisiana [interrupting]. Mr. Secretary, I am
out of time, and I appreciate you being here and answering
questions. I look forward to following up with you on this, and
I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, if it is OK, if you could,
please, provide the committee with the metrics for how you have
measured those four criteria that I mentioned. I would
appreciate it.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. Next up is Congresswoman
Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
I want you to know that in Nevada, we share your enthusiasm
for the funding that is going into infrastructure. I would just
point out a couple of things that we are doing. We got $2.5
billion for our roads and highways, $225 million to fix our
falling-down bridges, $100 million for our High-Speed Nevada
initiative for connecting with the Internet, and $5.5 million
for EV charging stations.
That put a lot of people to work, or it will, and it will
help us to grow and develop, and we invite you to come out and
see any of those projects in the works.
We had the highest unemployment in the country at 35
percent, but we are recovering that at a rapid rate thanks to
investments like this. So, I hope we will see you in Nevada.
My question, though, I would like to go back to my
colleague from Phoenix to talk about intercity passenger rail.
I want to just be sure I understand how that partnership grant
program is going to work.
So much of the investment in rail goes to the Northeast
Corridor, but we need to invest in the Southwest as well. They
need improvement. We need a greater availability.
So, I want to be sure that this would enable a public
entity like Nevada to apply for the grant and partnership with
a private intercity passenger rail company.
Second, what is the timing for when that application will
occur? And third, will you help us and work with me to see that
regional impact as opposed to just local impact plays a role in
the determination of who gets those grants?
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
To take the last question first, we, certainly, want to
think about the regional effect and how any given vision for
expanding passenger rail fits into an overall vision for a
first-rate passenger rail network serving the entire country,
and I know there is a great deal of interest in this in the
region you represent.
I want to emphasize that, under the annual funding of the
partnership, the State-Federal partnership, which gets $36
billion in advance appropriation over the next 5 years, that
not more than $24 billion can be provided to projects that are
in the Northeast Corridor. So, we understand and share the goal
of Congress to make sure that no one region monopolizes the
funding.
Right now, FRA is working through the applications for the
fiscal year 2021 partnership funding but will later this year
be able to make the funding available for the fiscal year 2022.
They issued just a few weeks ago in late June, the notice of
approach to developing the NEC inventory.
But again, the non-NEC program will be made clear. The
parameters of that will be made clear later on this year, and I
would certainly welcome the opportunity to work with you and
work with project sponsors from your region on how to provide
service where it could have a very big impact.
Ms. Titus. Yes. If you look at I-15 from Los Angeles to Las
Vegas, on the weekend, it is like a parking lot going one
direction or the other. We believe a speed train along that
same corridor would carry people in both directions. It
wouldn't just be a gambler's train. People would go south on
the train to Los Angeles, could become a commuter train. It
gets cars off the road and improves the air quality.
We have been studying this for a long time, and we are
close to making some progress, so, we hope to work with you and
see that that happens.
And I thank you very much. You can come out there for the
groundbreaking. How about that?
Secretary Buttigieg. We would love it. Thank you.
Ms. Titus. I yield back.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. Next up will be Mr.
LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Hello, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Buttigieg. Good afternoon.
Mr. LaMalfa. Welcome to our little event here. Thank you. I
will launch right in here.
So, I am a Member from California, northern California; and
in my home State, we have had this project that was initiated
in 2008 by a vote of the people for $9 billion worth of bond
funds to go to the high-speed rail to complete a project from
San Francisco to L.A., right?
So, over the years, we have found that they fall farther
and farther behind, and the price goes up and up and up. It was
sold to the voters then in 2008 as a $33 billion project with
the possibility of adding also a Sacramento and a San Diego
spur for a little more money later.
Well, it has fallen way behind. It was supposed to be
completed in--2020 actually was the original sale that the
voters were given--and now, they hope to have one segment done
by 2023, and the price has skyrocketed from the $33 billion
that the voters saw on the ballot to a number somewhere around
$105 billion, and it was supposed to also draw in a lot of
private investment to make up for the difference between the $9
billion and the $33 billion at the time.
So, they have been able to lay their hands on or identify a
number somewhere around $20-$25 billion maybe via cap and trade
and other things for a $105 billion project.
So, we are $80 billion short of being able to build it out,
and the Federal Government has put forward recently, I think,
about $2 billion in the recent IIJA and about $3\1/2\ billion
in the 2009 stimulus act.
And so, here we find ourselves $80 billion short to build
out at whatever today's price is, a project that currently, if
they can complete it in a certain amount of years--who knows--
it wouldn't go from S.F. to L.A., but Madera to Shafter,
California, which Madera and Shafter are kind of like S.F. and
L.A., right?
But anyway, I am pretty tired of this project not meeting
any promises and going way over and such, but I want you to be
aware, Mr. Secretary, that a simple thing like the land
acquisitions that are happening in the route--and so, they
haven't identified the whole route yet. They know the easier
part through the Valley and South Bay linking up with the North
Valley.
They don't know how they are going to get it through the
Tehachapis to L.A., but they are not even paying people for the
land that they have taken from them through eminent domain.
Are you aware of that situation, sir?
Secretary Buttigieg. You are saying that people have not
been compensated for expropriation of their land?
Mr. LaMalfa. Right. Right.
Secretary Buttigieg. I would want to see more details about
the case here.
Mr. LaMalfa. I would be happy to supply that to you.
So, I mean, can you support a federally backed project if
it was more a Federal nexus of taking property without
providing the compensation? You wouldn't do that; would you?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, any federally funded project
would have to comply with all of the law with regard to,
obviously, everything from Title VI to making sure people are
appropriately accommodated.
So, again, I would want to know more. Is this the subject
of a Federal complaint to your knowledge?
[Pause.]
Secretary Buttigieg. Anyway, we will look into it.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. We will get back with you, yes, sir.
Thank you.
But as the prices go up, when does the value become not
there for the thing? I mean, I can see Acela here on the east
coast, high ridership, density of population, and that works
out, more or less.
But here, we are decades behind now by the time we build it
out, and the price has at least tripled. Now, if I just had a
bid for getting my roof done, and they told me $33,000, and
they show up to start changing shingles, and they said, ``Oh,
now it is $105,000,'' I would say, ``I need a different bid.''
So, at the endpoint, what is right for the taxpayers on
this?
Secretary Buttigieg. So, the way we view it is that, that
decision is not entirely up to the Federal Government. It is
largely up to the project sponsor and the people of California,
who, as you have noted, there is Federal money into this,
especially from the 2009-2010 funds, but also the State has in
its recent budget agreement, I think, committed another 4.2.
So, what we really want to do is make sure that we are
getting the greatest bang for our Federal buck while partnering
with the State and proceeding as they see fit.
Mr. LaMalfa. They will be looking to the Feds for a lot
more because we are about tapped out at the State level. Let me
shift gears. I am sorry. Time always goes fast.
The AB5 implementation, that bill in California which is
basically taking small truckers and putting them out of
business if they are not operating as an employee of a larger
company, have you provided any guidance to the truckers in the
State about how we are going to comply with AB5 and not have
just a complete loss of those pool of truckers and already the
supply chain issues we have?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, certainly, a priority for us is
to increase employment in trucking, and we have seen that that
has grown substantially.
So, in this case, we have been able to engage with the
different players, but I need to emphasize also that, when it
comes to the litigation that is going on over this, the
Department is not a party to that.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. I mean, we are talking owner-operators,
not necessarily employees. The owner-operators, do they have a
place at the table anymore?
Secretary Buttigieg. Say again?
Mr. LaMalfa. Do the owner-operators have a place at the
table anymore; do you see?
Secretary Buttigieg. We, certainly, think owner-operators
are a very important part of the future of trucking just as
they are at the present.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Thank you. We have the PRO Act [inaudible]
in DC [inaudible] AB5.
But anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Congressman. Next up will
be Congressman Huffman.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary, it
is great to see you. Welcome back to the committee. Let me just
tell you how much I have been enjoying your testimony and your
answers to questions.
Like you, my starter EV was a C-Max, not much of a head
turner but very practical. I appreciate your sensibilities, and
I also appreciate the calm and factual way you have debunked a
few of the things that have been thrown at you by our
colleagues whether it is the price tag of EVs or conspiracy
theories about Government taking without compensation. We
appreciate your leadership.
One of the great things coming from a coastal California
district that I believe is in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
is the historic investments that allow communities to build
greater resilience and adaptation; and of course, my district
is on the frontline of climate impacts.
So, this includes the $8.7 billion from the newly created
PROTECT Grant Program as well as new eligibility in the
National Highway Performance Program to mitigate against sea
level rise, projects that mitigate sea level rise.
So, in my district, that is really important because it
allows State and local transportation officials to plan and
design and build differently. Instead of highway widening
projects from the 1970s, it asks them and invites them to
anticipate impacts we know are coming in the next 20 to 30
years.
But it does require a change in approach, some
institutional changes to shift away from doing things the way
they have always been done. And I just wanted to ask you about
that. Is the Department of Transportation helping to guide or
plan with local and State transportation officials to make sure
that they are looking decades down the road and not building
projects from the 1970s?
And I do realize that the chair asked you about whether you
are forcing States and locals to build certain ways, and I
appreciate your answer that you are not. But are you offering
guidance and help for them to plan in the way we need them to
plan?
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you for the question.
And it is especially timely given what we are seeing in
terms of climate impact on American infrastructure, and we know
when we are building something new that we might be making--or
the project sponsor might be making--a 30-, 40-, 50-plus-year
decision which means that we have got to be prepared to build
for the world as it will be, not the world as it has been.
So, for that reason, we are stepping up our efforts to
collaborate with different project sponsors on being able to
take those kinds of considerations that you raise into account.
And I also want to stress our appreciation for the robust
funding in the PROTECT Program specifically dedicated to
enhancing resilience. That is $7.3 billion over 5 years, and
$1.4 billion of that in this fiscal year. That is out of the
formula program, plus a discretionary program, too, that we
look forward to rolling out soon, all of which we think will
help to put our money where our mouth is as a country on the
idea of building resilient infrastructure and preparing for all
of the impacts ahead.
Mr. Huffman. I appreciate you mentioning the PROTECT
Program, and you said, ``rolling out soon.'' Is there anything
more you can tell us about the anticipated timeline for that?
Secretary Buttigieg. Let's see. I brought my little table
of upcoming Notices of Funding Opportunity because I knew this
would be of interest. I don't have a hard date, but I know that
it is one of the priority programs we are looking forward to
announcing shortly; and as soon as we do have a date, we will
make sure to make that known.
Mr. Huffman. We look forward to hearing about that.
In the time I have left, Mr. Secretary, I want to ask you
about EV charging infrastructure, another important element of
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and there have been some
recent reports of Tesla opening up its supercharger network to
non-Tesla EVs.
They are already doing this. I guess, they have been
required to do this in the European Union, but I am seeing some
accounts of that change now coming here.
Can you talk about whatever update you may have on that and
how significant that would be to our aspiration of having
ubiquitous high-quality EV charging infrastructures, so we can
accelerate this transition?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, it would make a big difference.
We are working hard to reach the President's goal of half a
million charging stations built out in a nationwide network by
the end of this decade, and it has never been the vision that
all of those are, or most of those, are Government owned and
operated.
Tesla has built an extraordinary wide-ranging and highly
effective network of chargers that are available, of course,
for use for the owners of those cars. I have heard Tesla
leadership, including in meetings with me and other OEMs,
discuss their vision for using some kind of adapter equipment
to make them available to drivers of other vehicles.
I haven't seen any concrete timelines or steps in that
direction, but it is, certainly, something we would welcome.
Mr. Huffman. All right. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Stanton. Next up is Mr. Gimenez.
Mr. Gimenez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and good to see you,
Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Secretary, on September 6, 2019, in a campaign stop,
the President in New Hampshire, he said, ``I want you to look
into my eyes. I guarantee you, we are going to end fossil
fuel.'' Do you support that?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I certainly support a transition
to domestic clean energy in our lifetime.
Mr. Gimenez. In your lifetime. Well, what is the timeframe
for that?
Secretary Buttigieg. For my lifetime? Only God knows the
answer to that question, sir.
Mr. Gimenez. OK. All right. What steps are you taking to
bring this along? What steps are you--do you want to see the
demise of fossil fuels here in the United States?
Secretary Buttigieg. We want to see the rise of domestic
clean energy production. It is creating a lot of jobs alongside
fossil fuel industries which, of course, are still a very
important part of our economy.
We recognize that we are running out of time when it comes
to the consequences in terms of the destruction of American
property and lives from the burning of fossil fuels in
transportation applications and the energy. We are pursuing a
policy that is going create more domestic clean energy
production because we think that will lead to a better economy,
and it will save those lives and that property.
Mr. Gimenez. Even though there are estimates that the world
is going to need additional fossil fuels for the next 50, 60,
70 years. Do you think that that should be American fossil
fuel, or they should be Saudi fossil fuel, or Venezuelan fossil
fuel?
Secretary Buttigieg. Our preference, again, is American-
made domestic clean energy production, and that is what our
policy----
Mr. Gimenez [interrupting]. Excuse me. You keep saying,
``clean energy.'' I am talking about fossil fuel. I am talking
about natural gas. I am talking about gasoline, et cetera. Are
you in favor of additional production here in the United
States, or do you want to see that limited?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, as you know, we have proposed,
for example, that oil companies that have decided not to
produce right now be faced with a choice. They can either
produce on the permits that they have, or they lose access to
those, and that is an example of, I think, the administration's
recognition that, at least in the short term, we are working
with what we have even as we are seeing a transition through.
Mr. Gimenez. Of a different tack, I looked at the F-150 you
said, both the electric and the gas-powered one, and there is a
difference of about $20,000 between one and the other; and when
you look at the $20,000, if you estimate about 20 miles to a
gallon, it is going to take about--at today's prices, it takes
about 80,000 miles in order for you to break even, and I am not
even talking about charging costs. I am just talking--no
charging costs.
And so, if you actually put that down to about $2.50 a
gallon, which was the price of gas before the Biden
administration, you don't break even until about 160,000 miles.
Is the Biden administration actively pursuing high energy
prices in order to force Americans into electric vehicles?
Secretary Buttigieg. Of course not. And I also want to
emphasize that you don't have to wait that 80,000 or 160,000
miles or however many it would be to break even if you don't
pay for the vehicle in cash, right? The great thing about an
auto loan is, you can realize the--or lease--is you can realize
the savings in terms of less maintenance and less fuel even
while the initial car payment might be higher, right?
And so, you are coming out ahead right out of the gate,
instead of having to wait many years for a payback, unless of
course, you are buying the vehicle in cash.
Mr. Gimenez. Well, I mean, your finance costs are going to
be--depends if you lease it, et cetera--but the finance, at the
end of the day, you are going to be paying $20,000 more however
you cut it, at least; and actually, if you finance it, you are
going to pay more because of you will paying interest. All
right?
So, at the end of the day, again, you are going to take
either 80,000 at $5 a gallon, and it is 80,000 miles to break
even; and then, by the way, have you figured in the 10-year
lifespan of a battery that you have to change so if you have a
160,000----
Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. Yes, we have. I mean,
the estimates that are showing that this is reaching parity and
pointing toward a savings depending on the model do account for
things like that.
Mr. Gimenez. But you would agree that the higher the price
of gas, then the faster you reach that parity?
Secretary Buttigieg. Of course. The more pain we are all
experiencing from the high price of gas, the more benefit there
is for those who can access electric vehicles. It is why we are
hoping you and your colleagues might reconsider opposing the
reduction of EV upfront prices with tax credits.
Mr. Gimenez. So, you are saying the more pain we have, the
more benefit we are going to get?
Secretary Buttigieg. Of course----
Mr. Gimenez [interrupting]. I think, that is what I heard
you say. You are saying the more pain that we----
Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. No. That is what you
heard me say.
Mr. Gimenez. Yes. That is what I heard you say.
Secretary Buttigieg. I know you want me to say it so bad,
but honestly, sir, what we are saying is that we could have no
pain at all by making EVs cheaper for everybody, and we would
love to have your support on that.
Mr. Gimenez. Are EVs cheaper by subsidizing them or----
Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. Yes. That is part of
it.
Mr. Gimenez. Yes. But that doesn't make it cheaper. That--
--
Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. Well, actually it does.
It makes it cheaper because that market-making investment gets
you past the tipping point. Current estimates actually are that
the U.S., as we cross that 5 percent new sales level, is
starting to hit what analysts typically consider to be that
tipping point.
But the more we stimulate the production of the clean cars,
right, the more you hit the economies of scale that makes them
cheaper to produce in the first place which means that you
won't need as many subsidies in the future. That is why we
believe in this policy.
Mr. Gimenez. Well, that is subject to debate. Thank you
very much. My time is up. I yield back.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you. Congressman Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Secretary, thank you for being here today. It is always
good to see you.
A couple of notes. The funding you mentioned going to Long
Beach in reference to the rail expansion along the ships to
remove the need for trucks, we might want to look at that for
Port Newark as well, and so, just, I am always throwing things
at you by the way.
And also, in February, I led 34 other Members in asking DOT
to get nearly $7 billion out the door quickly to advance
investments in the Northeast Corridor, the dreaded Northeast
Corridor, ooh.
Under the Department's current timeline for establishing
the Northeast Corridor inventory, States and others are not
likely to see this money until 2023. FRA's delay is
unacceptable.
What is your Department doing to expedite the availability
of these funds to answer our demand for better passenger rail?
Secretary Buttigieg. So, we recognize the importance of
working swiftly to prepare these investments while also making
sure that these investments that you only get to do once are
well considered. The Northeast Corridor Commission is working
through the next steps, and we have been consulting with them.
On June 25, the FRA published a notice of approach to
develop the NEC project inventory and opened up a comment
period to get input from the stakeholders on the Commission,
and we want to continue that consultation with the Commission,
but that process is one, again, that happens not without a
sense of urgency, and so, we remain on track to publish the
inventory by the statutory deadline which is November 15th of
this year.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. Now, on my taking over the
chairmanship of the Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials Subcommittee, I found that there was no DBE program
in the Federal Railroad Administration has studying if
discrimination exists in the passenger rail industry--I can
answer that--which would suggest the need for a Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise program.
It is critical that the study is completed both thoroughly
and promptly, so that, if a need is shown for the FRA DBE
program, Congress can respond quickly to guarantee that the
IIJA rail funding creates a fair playing field for
disadvantaged businesses.
When do you expect the disparity study to be completed, and
do I have a commitment that this remains, as you told us last
year, as a top priority for you?
Secretary Buttigieg. Yes. It is very important to us to
deliver on this priority, and we have undertaken a number of
actions to move hope forward with this program and provide
Congress with a package of material for consideration.
I can tell you that the team is working hard to complete
the study. It is a topic every time I sit down with our FRA
Administrator, and as soon as it is fit for delivery, we will
have it in your hands.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. Well, I think that is all I have, and
I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you. Next, I believe, Mr. Mast.
Mr. Mast. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Payne, you could have yielded me your time. I would
have----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mast. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today.
I want to ask a very specific question, and this is about
hours of service for truckers. Do you feel as though you are
endangering the lives of any American on the roadway with the
hours-of-service waivers that are being given for truckers that
are hauling something related to COVID, or Clorox, or
automobile parts?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, we think the waivers are
justified, or we wouldn't enact them. I do think that, over
time, we are going to learn from the data that come back on
what effect, looking back on these years, the waivers will
determine to have. But of course, if we didn't believe that
they were a responsible way to strike the balance, we wouldn't
pursue them.
Mr. Mast. I agree with you, Secretary. If we didn't believe
that they were responsible, they wouldn't be in place.
So, there's an hours-of-service waiver for allowing
truckers who carry food, fuel, products to fight COVID,
livestock, car parts--a host of things on that list--and they
can basically set their own flexible driving schedule that they
otherwise wouldn't be allowed to as long as they take a 10-hour
break each day.
So, it is far more simple than what they otherwise fall
under without that waiver. So, I would say it in this way. I
think, you and I could agree that a trucker is not a safer
driver because they are carrying Frosted Flakes that might be
on the waiver list versus laundry detergent. That would be an
agreeable statement?
Secretary Buttigieg. I think so. Obviously, we recognize
there are certain differences in cargo, but not all of those
differences are the same as the ones that qualify you for the
waiver. If that is what----
Mr. Mast [interrupting]. Well, then that example, Frosted
Flakes, would be waivered, so that you can just have a 10-hour
break, laundry detergent wouldn't be waivered.
Secretary Buttigieg. OK.
Mr. Mast. So, that wouldn't make a difference in the
quality of the trucker, or how they perform their duties or
safety?
Secretary Buttigieg. I hope not.
Mr. Mast. I would hope not as well. Likewise, we couldn't
say that they would be better because they are carrying Clorox
wipes versus baby clothes, right, and the list could go on and
on.
So, the request here is, for our truckers, the
administration, it is clearly determined that this kind of
flexibility for truckers, it is not a major safety threat to
say, ``Truckers, hey, if you are carrying COVID-related items
or Clorox wipes, all you need to do is make sure that you have
a 10-hour break.'' We don't need all of these other things that
go on in that hours of service, lack of flexibility.
So, it is not a threat. We agree on that. We have
determined it. The goods being carried don't determine to
threat--largely obviously, there can be hazardous materials--
but even when we talk about hazardous materials, we could say
that fuel is on that waiver list, probably one of the most
hazardous materials that could potentially be involved in a
collision, but that is on the waiver list.
So, we look at this, and we say, the Trump administration,
they had that policy for about 9 months. The Biden
administration has now had that waiver policy for about 1\1/2\
years. So, the request is, let's make it permanent and extend
those protocols to truckers that are carrying anything. Right?
They shouldn't have to go through the redtape of
determining whether they are carrying Frosted Flakes or laundry
detergent or Clorox wipes or baby clothes or whatever. If it is
not a safety threat, as we have determined it is not, to give
them those 10 hours.
Secretary Buttigieg. Yes.
Mr. Mast. You get 10 hours of rest. It is not a safety
threat. Let's let them not have to waiver this.
Secretary Buttigieg. So, I think, the response to that
hangs on the difference between believing something is a
responsible balance and believing it has no safety impact at
all. I think, we are agreed that it was a responsible way to
strike the balance, especially in responding to a crisis that
has claimed the lives of 1 million Americans.
I would want to see more data suggesting that there was no
safety impact at all before I could endorse the conclusion that
you are speaking to. But I do think it is reasonable to say
that, any time, even if it arises out of an emergency, we
gather data from some kind of flexibility being introduced, we
should learn from that and include that in our decisionmaking
for the future.
I just wouldn't say that we have reached the point where we
think that in any way justifies releasing those safety
requirements wholesale.
Mr. Mast. Yes. And I can appreciate you wanting to look at
the finer data points of this. It would be wrong for us not to
do that, but again, just to close that, we can see that we are
assessing. There is not a big enough safety threat to get rid
of it. It has gone on for 9 months under Trump and 1\1/2\
years-plus--2 years--under Biden.
So, it is not a big enough safety threat to not do that. We
should be looking at that for everybody given that people carry
a host of different things.
Just one final quick point here, and this comes from people
that have to deal with the FAA badge office. I have an
understanding that there are a number of very disrespectful
people in the FAA badge office that people in DC here are not
happy having to deal with in that office. If you could address
that in the way that they treat people that come through that
badge office, it would be greatly appreciated by some people
that I know.
Secretary Buttigieg. I will look into that right away.
Thank you for raising that.
Mr. Mast. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Mr. Malinowski [presiding]. The Chair recognizes Mr.
Lowenthal for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Secretary, I represent the Port of Long Beach. I am the
cochair with Randy Weber from Texas of the Congressional PORTS
Caucus. Thank you for being here and thank you for visiting our
ports and really becoming so knowledgeable about our ports, and
I appreciate your efforts to ease port congestion and to reduce
the costs for all American consumers.
The IIJA Port Infrastructure Development Program or the
PIDP is among the most critical tools to make freight move more
efficiently, to strengthen our supply chains, and tackling the
shipping costs.
In addition to the legislation, measures like expanding
gate hours at ports, popup container storage sites, ensuring
more transparency and data for freight exchanges have been so,
so important, and they are important signs of progress. For
example, freight rates from China to the west coast have fallen
almost 50 percent in the last 2 months.
I want to stress how critical it is that we ensure that the
PIDP is allocated as quickly as possible, and that these funds
support the electrification projects needed to increase
efficiency and to reduce the environmental impacts which our
higher freight flows have had on our climate and on our
frontline community. We also need to prioritize the funding
available under section 11402 of the IIJA to reduce truck
idling at ports.
Mr. Secretary, can you share more about what the
administration is doing to prioritize these critical projects,
to coordinate multimodal freight flows, and to reduce cost, and
when can we expect funding to be awarded?
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you very much for the question
and for the attention to the importance of efficiently and
smoothly moving freight through our ports.
As you mentioned, we have seen a lot of gains in terms of
sharp reductions in the number of ships at anchor and in terms
of improvements in shipping rates; although, they are still, of
course, higher than their pre-COVID levels, and we know there
is more work to be done here.
Specifically, with regard to the Port Infrastructure
Development Program, we are working to advance the 2022 funding
as quickly as we can. We released the Notice of Funding
Opportunity for that program within 90 days of the
infrastructure law passing consistent with the President's call
to move quickly as part of the ports action plan, and we have
also issued the amendment incorporating the funding from the
Appropriations Act within 60 days of that legislation moving
through.
So, now, we have got the applications in. We are working
diligently to review them and anticipate being able to announce
awards early in the fall, and I really look forward to the
difference that that can make in terms of our capacity and
readiness in our ports.
In the meantime, of course, we are not waiting for longer
term infrastructure upgrades in order to continue trying to
drive progress in this regard, and I would point to measures
like the creation of FLOW, Freight Logistics Optimization
Works. This is a data-sharing platform.
It is not mandatory. We are not ordering anybody to share
anything. It is voluntary, but those different players,
including private-sector actors in different parts of the
supply chain, who contribute data then get access to the
benefits of participating in that system.
We think it is going to make a big difference, and we are
looking forward to having a prototype of that up later on this
year, and our ports envoy, General Stephen Lyons, continues to
work with all of the different players at the ports to spot and
identify any and all issues that can be addressed in the near
term whether it is through Federal action within our
authorities or just getting the right players at the table.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I yield back.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. The Chair recognizes
Representative Johnson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Mr. Secretary, first off, I
would thank you for the positive comments you have made about
the Ocean Shipping Reform Act that Mr. Garamendi and I helped
to usher through the House and so, thank you for your support
of that. We have talked a lot about ports so far today, and I
think that will help. It is not a silver bullet, but I think it
will help.
When you appeared before this committee last year, you and
I had a productive conversation about siting and about how the
same type of project that would take 2 years to get sited, a
highway project, in France or in Germany; on average, it would
take 7\1/2\ years in America, which is clearly not evidence of
American exceptionalism; and in fact, makes it harder to have
American exceptionalism present itself.
You had talked, then, about some of the things that we can
do, I think you said, to move aspiration into action. Are we
making any progress on that front, and do you see room for
additional leadership by this Congress in helping make it
easier for us to do large projects?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, first of all, let me acknowledge
and thank you for your work on the bipartisan Ocean Shipping
Reform Act. It is another thing I should have mentioned just
now in my earlier answer of something that we think will make
progress on when it comes to shipping and supply chains.
And to your question, yes, I think we have made progress,
and yes, I agree. There is much more work to be done.
The comparisons to Europe are especially important, I
think, because we are talking about countries that are
certainly rigorous in their labor standards and in their
environmental standards, and yet consistently seem to be able
to deliver projects at a lower cost and at a swifter timeline
than tends to happen in the U.S.
Some of the things we have done in this regard include
increasing our visibility on what is going on with permitting,
so, the permitting dashboard is our main tool for doing that
and enacting the One Federal Decision-related provisions that
were in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that is
included and matching up the categorical exclusions that our
Department can join to with other agencies when there is some
interagency question, and making sure that we have a game plan
for how to hit those averages called for, the 2-year average
for the kinds of environmental review that many of our projects
are subject to.
But we recognize this is going to be a big ship to turn and
welcome all opportunities for good-faith collaboration on how
to do it without, of course, diminishing community voices or
environmental or other important--labor or other important
policy considerations, but having a pace and a cost of getting
through these processes that I think is what most Americans
would expect.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Yes, and one of the things I
struggle with is--and this is true whether we are talking high-
voltage transmission lines or highways. People talk about how
long it takes to get something sited and then I will tell them,
OK, bring me the specific knob we can turn, right? And I am
sure you ask the same question.
Because there are so many factors that slow down these
processes, it can be hard to figure out what button do you push
or what lever do you pull. So, it is a bit of an unfair
question for me to ask you, but as you review all of these
myriad things that make it difficult to get big projects done
in this country, is there one piece that we should focus our
collective fire on? One or two specific things we could be
working together?
Secretary Buttigieg. I think, as you noted, there is not a
silver bullet here, but I do think there are a few directions
that will be productive to look in. One is the capacity of the
project sponsors, so, making sure that they have the tools they
need to navigate these processes, especially because if we are
successful in bringing investments to jurisdictions that
haven't had much before--maybe small rural jurisdictions and/or
low-income areas that just haven't done much with the Federal
process--we can't expect them on day one to know how to
navigate it. And so, I think the support and the technical
assistance there is going to be important.
Second, of course, is to make the processes simpler in the
first place. It is one of the reasons you see us combining some
of our Notices of Funding Opportunity and even combining the
selection process just to have less paper and fewer steps
involved by virtue of having fewer programs on parallel tracks.
I think visibility matters. That is why we think that the
dashboard--I know it is a readout, not a mandate, but I
actually think it could play an important role because it will
just help us spot some of these issues.
We are trying to make sure we are combining the final EIS
in the record of decision to make sure that there is not a big
gap between those. We have also pursued the integration of some
of the permitting processes with the NEPA side of it because we
think some of those things can travel together, too.
So, I am afraid I don't have a sense of one or two things
that would make all the difference, but anything and everything
that we can do consistent with our bedrock commitments we are
certainly open to exploring.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Mr. Secretary, thanks. And
then, Mr. Chairman, via way of closing, I would just note that
this is a serious problem. I mean, nobody would suggest that
European countries flout environmental or labor standards. They
are able to get it done in 2 years. Frankly, America should be
able to get these projects done in that kind of timeframe as
well, and I thank the Secretary for his efforts.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you so much. The Chair recognizes Mr.
Lynch for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr.
Secretary. Good to see you. Steve Lynch, I represent the Port
of Boston. And thank you for your recent visit. It sounds like
you have been getting around to all of our ports. That is a
good thing.
First of all, I want to thank you for the support of the
Biden administration and your office. Recently we received $62
million to try to rebuild the terminals in Logan Airport. Those
are 1974-era terminals, so, we really appreciate the
opportunity to update those.
I want to also thank your office for working with us on the
North Jetty. We have obviously one of the oldest ports in the
country, and some of our infrastructure dates back to pre-World
War I. So, we are trying to repair that, and your office has
been very, very helpful.
In addition, we have had some problems with the MBTA
recently, and the Federal Transit Administration has been very,
very helpful in terms of coming in with guidelines that allow
us to operate that system not at full capacity, but safely. And
we appreciate their thoughtful and deliberate approach to that.
One of the other positions I hold is I am a vice chair of
the Quiet Skies Caucus. And so, we are having difficulty in and
around Logan Airport. Logan Airport was actually originally
built in the 1920s by the United States Army, and they laid out
the runways to favor the wind direction for those planes back
in the 1920s that didn't have much thrust.
So, unfortunately, as the city has grown, those runways now
steer planes directly over many environmental justice
communities. And not only that, but with the advent of next-gen
air-nav systems, we have thousands and thousands and thousands
of planes flying over laser-guided air vectors over the same
homes, repeatedly, and it is causing health problems for the
people in those areas next to the airport.
Now, I have tried to persuade the FAA to look at an
approach here where they would adjust the configuration of the
runways. We have an entire port area where they could be
bringing in flights and having flights take off completely over
water, not flying over these densely settled, as I said,
environmental justice neighborhoods. But I have had great
difficulty in persuading them to do so.
I am wondering if your administration, your office would be
willing to work with us on that. We obviously have a great need
in the area, but this is critical to the quality of life to the
people in my district.
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I want to recognize your
leadership of the Quiet Skies Caucus, and certainly we
recognize that as the FAA moves to modernize the National
Airspace System, there is a risk that these efforts can result
in changes to the flight pattern that effectively concentrate
the route and concentrate the noise and this, of course,
concentrates the impact on the residents who live directly
under them.
I would be humbled by attempting to venture anything
specific to runway configuration here. I know that is very
technical and often has to do with things like the direction of
the wind and other engineering considerations, but certainly
would welcome further dialogue with your office on how to make
sure that those community impacts are managed as responsively
as possible and that any mitigations that can be identified
responsibly are pursued.
I know that the FAA has sought to add resources in terms of
community engagement, and anytime that is found wanting,
welcome the chance to work with the congressional office to try
to firm that dialogue up.
Mr. Lynch. That is great. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I just
want to point out that periodically we do have to redo the
runways. We just had one of the major runways redone several--
well, over a year ago now, and we shut it down and we moved the
flights to another runway. So, logistically we could do this if
we had--I have had dealings with the FAA, and in some things
they are great and on other things they are impervious to
public input and impervious to congressional persuasion as
well.
So, I would appreciate your cooperation on that, and I am
thankful for the work that you have done in the Port of Boston
and I appreciate what the Biden administration has done as
well.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr.
Balderson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary,
thank you for being here. I was actually on the same flight to
Columbus on Friday night with you, so, it was good to see you
going to the airport and getting on the plane. So, thank you.
I was a strong supporter of the DRIVE Safe Act and I was
proud to offer this bill as an amendment when the committee
marked up Chairman DeFazio's infrastructure bill last year.
This program creates a pathway for CDL holders between the ages
of 18 to 20 to participate in interstate commerce after
completing substantial safety training. And while I had major
concerns with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, I was
happy to see this important pilot program included in the final
bill.
Can you discuss the current status of the Safe Driver
Apprenticeship Pilot Program?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I want to recognize your work on
this and recognize also that it happens in the broader context
of needing to make sure that we have the strongest and best
possible workforce in truck driving. It has been estimated that
the gap is as high as 80,000, although I think it has closed to
some extent. And so, the question that this pilot program
speaks to, of course, is: Is there a way to engage younger
drivers without any kind of detriment to safety? And I think
the pilot program has provided us with a responsible way to
determine that.
In January of this year, FMCSA announced the establishment
of the program in the Federal Register. So, that was the first
step really to get the details out about the pilot. And they
are now completing some of the other administrative tasks they
will need just because it is a new program, but I do believe we
will be able to begin to accept applications into this program
by the end of summer of this year and then we will be watching
closely, of course, to see how it unfolds and to ultimately
gather the data that will tell us what, if any, safety impact
there is.
Mr. Balderson. OK. Thank you very much. I appreciate that
answer.
Mr. Secretary, last month I sent you a bipartisan letter
signed by 67 of my colleagues regarding several issues facing
motor vehicle carriers and those transporting hazardous
materials. Behind this issue is the costly background check
redundancies within the Transportation Worker Identification
Credential, Hazardous Materials Endorsement, and the TSA
PreCheck programs.
I have heard from drivers across industries that
streamlining or harmonizing these credentials, which largely
require the same information, would go a long way in reducing
costs and unnecessary burdens on drivers. I understand this
issue is under TSA's jurisdiction, but since you are the
cochair of the Supply Chain Disruptions Task Force and you are
the primary regulator of the trucking industry as Secretary of
Transportation, I am curious if you have any thoughts on this
matter or if you have heard anything from TSA or DHS on efforts
to reduce these redundancies.
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I don't want to preempt the
process of replying to your letter just because we do want to
make sure we coordinate with DHS on that given TSA's role. But
let me affirm the general principle that whenever the
Government is gathering information from the same person twice,
we have an opportunity. And provided we can find ways to meet
this concern that don't have any adverse effect on safety and
security, we are very open to examining what we can do.
Mr. Balderson. OK. Thank you very much. And anytime you are
in Columbus, Ohio, again, let me know. I will get a nice dinner
arrangement for you. So, thank you, sir, and Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you so much. The Chair recognizes
Representative Carbajal for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Secretary Buttigieg,
welcome. I commend you and the Biden administration for your
leadership in helping us to advance the historic Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law.
This represents some of the largest investments to bring
our Nation's roads, bridges, transit, broadband, and waterways
into the 21st century, and, at the same time, create good-
paying jobs for many Americans.
My district has already begun to benefit from these Federal
infrastructure dollars in so many ways. Currently, the Santa
Barbara County Association of Governments is working towards
improving U.S. Highway 101, which is one of two critical and
major north-south arteries in California. This May, they
applied for Federal Mega/INFRA dollars to reduce congestion
along a portion of U.S. 101, encourage a shift of mode of
transportation, strengthen job accessibility, and reduce
harmful pollution from greenhouse gas emissions.
I worked on this project when I served in local government
on the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, and I can
tell you this project is a win-win-win, not only for our local
region but for the entire State transportation system.
There is $810 million--almost $1 billion--in State and
local funds--yes, I said local funds--currently pledged to this
project, which means approximately 80 percent of this project
is coming from non-Federal sources. So, I think it is fair to
say that it is time for the Federal Government to step up.
Can you provide an update on the timeframe for when your
Department will be making determinations on these applications?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you for the question, and
certainly we recognize that and the former mayor in me
recognizes that State and local jurisdictions have been asked
to shoulder too much for too long. It is part of why the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is so welcome. And part
of what we have sought to do with the particular program you
are referencing, the combined INFRA/Mega/Rural NOFO is to
position ourselves to deploy these dollars as quickly as we
can.
When the deadline closed for this combined Notice of
Funding Opportunity, we had more than 450 applications. So, we
are working through those right now and should be able to
announce selections in the fall, and looking forward to funding
as many deserving applications as we can, and this will
certainly get full and fair consideration.
Mr. Carbajal. Great, thank you. Again, 80 percent funded
with non-Federal dollars.
As a member of the Climate Solutions Caucus, I supported
the inclusion of the Carbon Reduction Program in the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law. How are you working towards reducing
harmful emissions?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, the Carbon Reduction Program is
going to give us $6.4 billion of resources to help communities
and States and jurisdictions in this work. And we are looking
forward to seeing the plans as they begin coming through on how
States aim to use that.
I should emphasize the bulk of this is formula dollars that
the States can program as they see fit, provided it is
consistent with the basic outlines of what Congress calls for
in the legislation.
Of course, that is not all there is to the opportunity to
mitigate carbon through this infrastructure law. Just about
anything you do in transit almost by definition will lead to
reduced carbon pollution. That is doubly true for things like
the low- and no-emission bus program and other things that help
transit, which is already presumptively carbon-reducing to also
operate on a cleaner basis. And I think across all of the
programming you see, even or especially when we are meeting
other goals like enhancing our supply chains or giving
commuters or passengers a more convenient and efficient
experience, that we are going to be making a major difference
on carbon as well.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Let me just close by reiterating
my standing invitation to you to visit my district. As you can
see, that 101 major project is a very significant effort going
on in my region, but there are many others, and I hope you will
consider coming out. I know my constituents would love to
showcase all that we have done and continue to do in regards to
transportation and infrastructure. So, please come out. Some of
us call my area paradise on earth, which you would be remiss to
not come out to. Thank you.
Secretary Buttigieg. I would love it. Thank you.
Mr. Malinowski. He does have a very nice district. I can as
chair attest to that.
We will now recognize Mr. Katko for 5 minutes. Thanks.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just want to
correct the record and say that Syracuse, New York, is paradise
on earth, not Mr. Carbajal's district.
But Mr. Buttigieg, I want to thank you very much for being
here today, and it is good to see you again. The last time I
saw you, I think we were in the White House a year ago, in the
Oval Office, in February, speaking about infrastructure with a
small group of individuals with the President and Vice
President there as well. And a lot has happened since then, and
I am thrilled to say that I was the very first Republican to
cast my vote in favor of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act.
It is a culmination of many years of work on my part and
others, and it started back in 2017 with the Problem Solvers
Caucus. I chaired the subcommittee that issued an
infrastructure report. We updated it in 2021. We presented it
to a group of Governors, Senators, Members of Congress, and it
caught fire and went from there.
So, I am thrilled that we finally got it across the finish
line, and I am glad to be able to talk to you about it here
today.
And central New York, as you know, is going to be a major
beneficiary of this act because of the Interstate 81 rebuild
that is going to be going through the heart of the city. And
that money is sorely needed there and elsewhere across this
country.
Providing stable and dependable Federal funding for
infrastructure was one of the reasons I came to Congress. And I
was proud to do my part to make that a reality by supporting
this infrastructure bill.
In addition to providing billions of dollars for a wide
range of other physical infrastructure priorities, New York
State is seeing a significant increase in its apportionment of
Federal highway aid under this law, which is welcome news. From
major highway projects to addressing wear and tear on rural
roads, this funding makes a huge difference top to bottom
across our State.
And unfortunately, along with many of my constituents, I am
concerned about how far this money is going to go in the near
future due to the dramatic rise in inflation. I want to note
that the infrastructure bill is not the problem here, and it is
not the inflation driver. There is not an expert who says it
is.
In fact, according to experts from the American Enterprise
Institute, the infrastructure bill actually eases inflationary
pressures in the long run because of its focus on improving
productivity over the next decade.
However, as we all know, this was not the only bill
Congress passed last year, and we now find ourselves at a point
where inflation reached a 40-year high of 9.1 percent last
month, which is the most I have seen since I was a young man
when the Carter administration was in power.
Inflation has impacted prices in every sector, but of
specific interest to our conversation today are the prices of
construction materials and fuel, which are going through the
roof. As States and localities try to budget for in-demand road
and bridge projects, sustained inflation is going to make it
even more difficult to stretch these critical infrastructure
dollars to cover the projects that Congress intends them to.
As a result, we end up facing the exact same dependability
challenges this bill was supposed to address. So, I have a
couple of quick questions for you, and if you could help me
with them, I appreciate it.
First of all, what steps are the Department taking to
ensure that the purchasing power of the infrastructure act
remains intact? And second of all--and you can take these in
either order you would like--can I assume that the Department
of Transportation is [inaudible] efforts on permitting reforms
to the infrastructure act to help reduce the baked-in costs and
delays for these projects?
And with that, I yield back.
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you, and let me recognize
your support and leadership when it came to this infrastructure
law coming together and strongly agree with you and with the
economists who have indicated that seeing it through is going
to ease inflationary pressure.
For that reason, we feel a great sense of urgency about
making sure that we effectively use these taxpayer dollars. And
there is no question that the increased cost of input to
building infrastructure represents a challenge for us in
implementation. This is true whether we are talking about
supply chain constraints contributing to raw material costs or
whether we are talking about workforce shortages impacting
labor costs.
So, several things that we are able to do, and one thing I
would point to is the collaboration that we have with project
sponsors to share best practices from what we have seen around
the country and even around the world on how to effectively
keep those costs under control, use technical assistance to
provide that kind of support, and of course continue working
the root causes of the issue through efforts like the Supply
Chain Disruptions Task Force.
We also see certain flexibilities that do exist within the
legislative framework, and when they are there we will pursue
them in order to make sure project sponsors succeed, but are of
course always open to working with Congress on other measures
that we can take to make sure that we really get that value,
that $1.2 trillion worth of economic and other benefit to the
American people for the taxpayer investment that is being made
here.
Mr. Katko. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you so much. I will recognize myself
now.
Let me start, Mr. Secretary, setting a couple of things
straight. I am sure you will agree with me that every American
should have the freedom to buy whatever kind of car they want.
Secretary Buttigieg. Agreed.
Mr. Malinowski. But when more people buy EVs, the overall
demand for gas goes down, right? Which means that the price of
gas also goes down for everybody who still exercises their
choice to buy a gas-guzzling car. So, this is a win-win. I
don't understand why this has become a partisan or Tribal issue
in America.
And then when it comes to gas prices and Putin, I remember
the days immediately after Russia's invasion of Ukraine;
virtually all of my Republican colleagues were taking to the
airwaves demanding that President Biden ban Russian oil, every
single speech on the House floor and committee hearings
confronting administration officials coming to brief us, and
all of us knew perfectly well that this would result in gas
prices going up. You cannot take the number 2 world exporter of
oil offline in a day without having that effect.
And I, in those days, I drafted a House resolution that
would have urged President Biden to do exactly that, to ban
Russian oil, but in the text acknowledging that there would be
economic sacrifices for the American people, hoping that we
could come together as Democrats and Republicans patriotically
urging the President to do the right thing, but taking common
responsibility. And I couldn't find a single Republican to sign
on to that resolution because apparently some people wanted the
President to do it and then to blame him for the consequences.
And unfortunately, we are still seeing that today.
With that, I want to ask you what I always ask you about,
which is the Gateway Program for New Jersey and New York. We
have made such extraordinary progress working with you and your
team. We ended the Trump-era policy that made it harder for
States to finance their portion of big infrastructure projects.
We finally got the environmental impacts statement done for
the tunnel. We secured and improved project rating from the
Federal Transit Administration. We signed a full funding grant
agreement to replace the Portal North Bridge and we will be
breaking ground on that essential project in the coming days.
And just 2 weeks ago, New Jersey and New York agreed on how
they are going to split the costs of this incredibly important
project at the State level. And then, of course, we passed the
infrastructure bill that will fund this.
But just as I pushed really hard to get us to this point, I
am going to push just as hard to get this done faster. And I
understand these projects are complicated. They don't get built
overnight. But I am sure you won't be surprised to hear my
constituents are not going to be happy to hear statements like,
this could go until 2035. It is not going to be acceptable.
So, I actually want to echo Mr. Johnson's question to you
about why infrastructure project delivery in the United States
takes so long and costs so much in comparison with other
wealthy countries that have equally strong labor and
environmental standards as the United States. What are we going
to do about it and how can we apply those measures to this
project, the Gateway project for New Jersey and New York? Thank
you.
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. First of all, let me
share your enthusiasm for making sure that the Gateway project
is a success. It holds the potential to ease congestion, to
provide better service, to create stronger redundancy and
availability for intercity rail and a whole number of other
issues that will be very important for the Northeast Corridor
and represents such an economically significant set of
transportation activities that the entire country will benefit.
And in particular, I want to applaud the agreement that was
reached between New York and New Jersey, knowing that it is
never a small or easy thing for two States to agree on cost-
sharing. And I called Governor Murphy and Governor Hochul to
express my appreciation for their leadership on that.
It is a project or a set of projects that will I think test
us in terms of our ability to reduce the gap between the cost
it takes to deliver a project in the U.S. and the cost you see
in a lot of other Western countries.
While I can't point to any single factor that explains the
difference, there are a number of things that we know
contribute to it. Part of it is the complexity of aligning the
different parties, and so that is why we are so pleased to see
the States collaborating in this regard. Also, the Gateway
Development Commission now has its executive director named.
That is also we think a very positive development because it
gives you the unified leadership that you need.
We also want to inventory best practices from other
countries or other parts of the U.S. that have been quicker
than others while maintaining project quality. And we are
driving ourselves very hard internally to try to make sure the
process is as smooth and as straightforward as possible.
We think that with the right level of intentionality, we
can buck the trend of very large, very complex projects to go
longer and cost more than they should.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you so much. I yield back my time and
we will now go to Mr. Westerman for 5 minutes. Thank you.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Secretary
Buttigieg, for being here today. Count me among one of those
Members of Congress who didn't vote for what I would call the
world's largest infrastructure spending package in the history
of the world, one that was more than enough money to completely
rebuild the U.S. Interstate Highway System in today's dollars.
But the big issue was that not only did it not come before this
committee, it went before no committee and had no markup in the
House of Representatives.
But it is the law now and as we look to do oversight on it,
I noticed that last Friday, FHWA proposed a notice of proposed
rulemaking to require State DOTs and metropolitan planning
organizations to establish declining carbon dioxide targets and
develop a system for measuring and reporting greenhouse gas
emissions. This is in line with the President's Executive order
in January of 2021.
However, nobody voted on this in the IIJA because it wasn't
in there. So, in light of the Supreme Court's recent ruling on
the EPA's authority over powerplant emissions, do you have any
concerns that the administration may be overstepping the law in
putting this out? And plus the amount of time--this is a big
issue, and I have already had my State DOT contact me about not
having enough time to comment on it.
Secretary Buttigieg. We are very confident in the
congressional authority for this rule. It actually dates back
to 2012, when Congress passed MAP-21, which provides for the
Federal Highway Administration to put out performance measures.
We have used that authority, or I should say the Department
because much of it is before my time, but the Department has
successfully used that authority on a number of different
issues, and this is part of that tradition, and I think one
that comes at a very important time.
Obviously, the evidence on climate change and the
destruction of American lives and property due to climate
change is beyond any doubt. We also know that the largest
sector in the U.S. economy contributing greenhouse emissions is
the transportation sector. And we have been very mindful of the
limits on Federal authority in crafting this proposed
rulemaking. It doesn't, for example, mandate any targets. It is
really about the States being able to track their progress
toward their own targets.
But with this being such a central issue of importance for
the world and for the American people, what would it say about
us if we couldn't even measure it? And so, we are trying to get
those basic standards in place, and if your State DOT has any
concerns in terms of their ability to comply, this is certainly
the time to make those known through the NPRM comment process,
but also we would be happy to engage with them directly.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you. And you talked about climate and
carbon. It is something that I work on. I have worked on a lot
of natural climate solutions. But you had mentioned earlier in
the testimony, and I know you have a goal--or you bought into
the goal of I think replacing half of the fleet by 2030 or half
of the new car sales, and you just mentioned that
transportation is the largest sector of carbon emissions.
So, what percent of the world's carbon emissions is the
United States accountable for?
Secretary Buttigieg. I think at this point we are--we
remain in the top two, if I recall correctly, and are in the
neighborhood of 15 percent.
Mr. Westerman. Fifteen percent. And transportation being
the largest part of that, what percentage of that 15 percent is
transportation?
Secretary Buttigieg. Depending how you count, something
like one-third.
Mr. Westerman. OK, one-third of 15 percent. I think the
number is actually closer to 27 percent, but that is all of
transportation. How much of the transportation are passenger
cars responsible for?
Secretary Buttigieg. I would say surface is the biggest
share. I don't have the percentage offhand. I just know that it
is something we are responsible for, and with every piece that
we are responsible for, shame on us if we don't do the best
that we can.
Mr. Westerman. Yes, and if you go through the math, you
find out that if every electron going into an electric vehicle,
if all passenger cars were electric vehicles, you are
offsetting less than 1 percent of global greenhouse gas
emissions, which, that is nothing to laugh at, but it is just
not the panacea that I see folks on the left claiming that it
is, and it is a huge cost to our country. Do you think there
are other areas that maybe we should--with all the challenges
with electric vehicles?
And I heard you talk earlier about how we are developing
the minerals and elements, the copper wire, the lithium. Well,
you are saying that, and then I am the ranking member on the
Natural Resources Committee, and I see bill after bill to
withdraw mining from Federal lands where these resources lie.
So, if we are developing them here in this country, I sure
don't know where we are developing them. It appears to me that
we are relying more heavily on China and other countries to
provide the minerals and elements that we need, and we are not
developing here. So, it looks like there is a miscommunication
between the administration and what Members of Congress are
working towards, and kind of in opposite directions.
I yield back.
Mr. Malinowski. If you would like to respond, it is OK.
Secretary Buttigieg. I don't want to tie up any more time.
Just to endorse the idea that there is going to be a lot of
different things we have got to do at the same time. We simply
think anything that we are responsible for, especially using
technologies that exist and that American workers are making
good money building right now, are those that show the most
promise and those that we have got to push the hardest on.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
Allred for 5 minutes.
Mr. Allred. Good afternoon, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I want to thank Chairman DeFazio for holding this
hearing.
Secretary Buttigieg, it is great to see you. Thanks for
coming to Dallas and seeing some of the good things that we
have going on there. I want to thank the Department for getting
the historic funding from this bill that I was proud to vote
for out as quickly as you have. These dollars are making
already a monumental impact on my community and communities
across Texas.
In fact, last month the Texas Department of Transportation
released its plan to build out an EV charging infrastructure
throughout the State to support 1 million electric vehicles.
Thanks to the IIJA, the State is expected to receive about $407
million over 5 years to do that.
Now, as you know--you have been to Texas, it is a big
State; we have got some big distances involved. I am wondering
how you propose working with State DOTs that are similar to
Texas if they build a reliable network of stations that
addresses range anxiety that maybe some consumers have and
allow us to really make this a success.
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. We recognize that for
your community and communities across Texas and many in the
U.S., the ability to successfully participate in the EV
revolution, to get the fuel savings that come with owning an
EV, are only as good as your opportunities to charge them, and
especially if your work or your commute requires you to cover
long distances on a regular basis.
We have got to make sure that it is as certain that you
will find chargers where you need them as it is that you will
find gas stations where you need them on a road trip today.
With the funding that Congress has provided, we have
formula dollars going to every State. This year, a slice of
that--$615 million--to make sure that there is that backbone
across the highway network.
And I will say this was crafted with a lot of regard for
the differences between the States. We don't know what the
right way is to lay it out in every particular, so, we have
asked the States to prepare their plans and then file them with
us by August 1st. As long as they meet the legal requirements,
then we will be off and running on funding them and look
forward to seeing what Texas and the other States prepare for
us.
Mr. Allred. Yes, I think it is exciting. In a former life I
was an NFL player, and I was interested to see in the last
Super Bowl, every car commercial was for an electric vehicle.
Right? And this is what I think people are excited about. But
for States like Texas, for us to move into that future, we need
this charging infrastructure. And so, I think it is an
incredibly important aspect of this bill.
I also want to talk about aviation. As you know, DFW is
home to one of our busiest aviation sectors. We are home to the
second busiest airport in the world, Dallas Fort Worth
International Airport. In 2016, it received recognition as the
first airport to become carbon neutral in North America.
Recently, DFW received $35 million from FAA to increase
terminal sustainability and assist the airport in reaching its
net-zero emissions goal by 2030.
And I am wondering how the Department envisions airports
using the Airport Improvement Program funds from IIJA to help
build capacity at the airports, and if you believe these funds
will help with some of the delays that I certainly have been
hearing about and also experiencing as somebody who flies twice
a week on most weeks, and cancellations that I think so many
folks here in the country are feeling.
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. Yes, we were very pleased
to support DFW's application through the Airport Terminal
Program that is going to help them with a powerplant, and I
think yield not only air-quality improvements and
sustainability improvements but also I think cost savings for
the airport in the long run, which means whatever those fees do
go to maybe are more likely to be passenger-facing than if they
were just going----
Mr. Allred [interposing]. Right.
Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Into the heating and
cooling bill, which we certainly welcome.
You mentioned the other program, the Airport Improvement
Program, AIP, which is funded to the tune of $3.35 billion in
the President's fiscal year 2023 budget request. And those are
dollars that we think will help enhance capacity as well as
safety, security, and other concerns at the airports.
And so, that will be part of the stack alongside the other
sets of aviation funding that came in the infrastructure law
that can really help us on everything from physical plant
improvements around the airport--the runway, the apron, the
gates--to things like air traffic control facilities that if
you allow them to deteriorate can also become a limiting
factor, not to mention a quality-of-life issue for our very
hard-working air traffic controllers.
All of those call for investment, and we are glad that we
are able to deliver so much of it now thanks to the bipartisan
law.
Mr. Allred. Absolutely. Well, I know I am almost out of
time here. I just want to say I was happy to hear you say
recently you plan to use the funds from IIJA to establish high-
speed rail demonstration projects in the country, and if you
could briefly elaborate on how the Department plans to deliver
on that goal and how much of the funding do you plan to
allocate towards high-speed rail projects just very briefly.
Secretary Buttigieg. Sure. So, in a nutshell, it is enough
not to build out a full high-speed rail network across the U.S.
but to begin to demonstrate that the U.S. can do high-speed
rail as effectively as anyone. And we look forward to
supporting as many routes as possible. It will probably be a
handful stacked alongside all the other rail needs in the U.S.,
but enough, I hope, to show that America can lead here as well.
Mr. Allred. Well, we certainly want it in Texas. And with
that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. We will go to Mr. Nehls for 5
minutes. Thanks.
Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here.
Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was the system
of checks and balances. Congress has a duty to oversee the
executive branch, and Members of Congress deserve answers to
questions they pose to the executive branch.
My office has written several letters to you, and we have
not received a response on most of them. I sent you a letter
back on May 2nd asking you a very simple question about whether
the Biden administration supports maintaining a preferential
no-fly zone for Disney. Did you ever receive that letter or did
you read it?
Secretary Buttigieg. I believe we have it, yes.
Mr. Nehls. OK. Mind you that no other amusement park enjoys
restrictions on airspace, including competitors like Universal
Studios. These no-fly zones are usually reserved for high-
security targets like the White House and our most sensitive
military facilities like nuclear launch sites. So, that totally
makes sense.
I would like to add no executive agency wrote to Congress
about a national security need for this no-fly zone, which is
the custom. The Obama administration's FAA Administrator
testified that Disney's no-fly zone does not meet the standard
requirements and would not be in place had Congress not enacted
specific legislation, a process that has been widely reported
that was done out of uncouth lobbying.
So, what is the administration's stance on the preferential
treatment for Disney's no-fly zone?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, of course, fundamentally we
simply have to apply the law, and in this case, as you noted,
this set of flight restrictions that the FAA maintains, we do
so because it is part of congressional legislation that was
enacted in 2004 and then we codified those in notices to air
missions.
I know that we have had inquiries both from Members of
Congress from time to time and from industry about this, and
ultimately any changes to that policy would be for Congress to
put forward just as the policy itself has come from
congressional statute.
Mr. Nehls. Fair enough, and thank you. And I will be
pursuing just that here in the next Congress.
And could you please--and just in one word, let's have some
fun with this--could you please describe America to me in one
single word. What would that be if you could describe America
in one single word?
Secretary Buttigieg. For me, I guess home.
Mr. Nehls. Home. Fair enough. Fair enough. Well, just a few
weeks ago, this is how President Biden described America in one
word [indicating a poster]. Could you please tell me what that
word means? It is this one right here. Could you even say the
word?
Secretary Buttigieg. Congressman, I am not in the habit of
trying to read transcriptions of----
Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. I bring this up to you, sir----
Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. Words on television.
Mr. Nehls. I bring this up to you because you yourself
questioned Donald Trump's mental state of mind in September of
2019 when you stated to CNN, I quote, ``If our Presidency is
not in good shape, then our country is not in good shape.'' And
Mr. Secretary, I could not agree with you more. I am going to
repeat what your quote is. ``If our Presidency is not in good
shape, then our country is not in good shape.''
Inflation is at 9.1 percent, gas prices are through the
roof, our adversaries are exploiting our weaknesses across the
globe, and our southern border is nonexistent. This
administration puts the American people last. The left and the
dishonest media, which in my humble opinion is the greatest
threat to this country, the dishonest media, began questioning
President Trump's mental state back in February of 2017, a
month into his Presidency.
We now have President Biden in office for 18 months, and
just recently we now see the mainstream media questioning
President Biden's mental state, and for good reason. Sadly, he
shakes hands with ghosts and imaginary people. He falls off
bicycles. Even at the White House Easter celebration, the
Easter Bunny had to guide him back into his safe place [poster
is displayed]. Cue cards that say ``sit here'' or ``end of
speech,'' which he actually states--that is, if he stays awake
[poster is displayed].
So, my question for you is, sir, have you spoken with any
other Cabinet members about implementing the 25th Amendment on
President Biden?
Secretary Buttigieg. First of all, I am glad to have a
President who can ride a bicycle.
Mr. Nehls. Answer the question.
Secretary Buttigieg. And I will look beyond the insulting
nature of that question and make clear to you that the
President of the United States----
Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. Have you spoken to any----
Secretary Buttigieg [interrupting]. Of course not.
Mr. Nehls [continuing]. Other Cabinet members about
implementing the 25th Amendment on President Biden?
Secretary Buttigieg. Of course not.
Mr. Malinowski [interposing]. Please allow the witness to
give his answers.
Secretary Buttigieg. You ought to know that the President
of the United States----
Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. Have you emailed--this is my
time. Have you emailed any members with the executive branch--
--
Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. The President of the
United States----
Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. About the President's health or
cognitive decline, including text messages, from your private
phone?
Secretary Buttigieg. The President of the United States is
as vigorous a colleague or boss as I have ever had the pleasure
of working with.
Mr. Nehls. I figured this. What about political appointees
that you are speaking to? Have you spoken about this to----
Mr. Malinowski [interrupting]. The gentleman's time has
expired.
Secretary Buttigieg. I couldn't hear the question, I am
sorry.
Mr. Malinowski. Well, that----
Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. Will you yield me 1 minute, sir?
Mr. Malinowski. Absolutely not. If you had yielded the
Secretary some time to actually answer the ridiculous question,
you might have actually gotten something.
We will now----
Mr. Nehls. [interrupting]. The question?
Mr. Malinowski [continuing]. Turn to Mr. Garcia for 5
minutes.
Mr. Nehls. Mr. Van Drew?
Dr. Van Drew. I will yield you a minute.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Nehls. Mr. Van Drew would like to yield me.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking
member, for convening this hearing, and of course thanks to
Secretary Buttigieg for joining us today.
The IIJA was an important bill that funds our policy needs.
As the chairman reminded us last week as his portrait was being
unveiled, the House passed a truly game-changing,
transformative bill that we call the INVEST Act, establishing
greenhouse gas emissions metrics, advancing a ``fix it first''
agenda, a massive investment in environmental justice
initiatives to name a few. Even though we weren't able to
advance the INVEST Act, or the Build Back Better Act, I am
heartened that under your leadership, Mr. Secretary, the U.S.
DOT has begun to implement parts of this progressive agenda
under its existing authorities.
Still, more must be done, and how we implement the IIJA is
absolutely critical. For far too long, transportation policy
has been disconnected from the broader social justice debate,
yet it determines access to jobs, clean air, clean water,
affordable housing, and the fate of our climate. Mr. Secretary,
I represent a working class immigrant community in Chicago in
the Cook County suburbs, and as you know, Chicago is a hub for
rail, air, and truck transportation.
Our communities deal with both the good and the bad of
that. My neighborhood, Little Village, has some of the highest
asthma and respiratory diseases in the country, and
unfortunately, pollution from our transit corridors plays a big
role in that. We have to be honest about the policies that led
us here and deliberate about setting a new path. Mr. Secretary,
approximately how much of IIJA money is going to expand
highways and add lanes?
Secretary Buttigieg. So, I'd have to pull the exact
funding, and of course some of that will depend on how the
States and project sponsors choose to allocate funding that
could go either toward transit or highways in the formula case,
and on the discretionary side, could go towards projects that
are more or less highway intensive, but what I'll say also is
that this legislation gives us the means to look beyond the
1950s, 1960s, or 1970s mentality about transportation that
often really subjected any mode other than single occupancy
vehicles to the back burner, and when we do, as you wisely
note, the benefit is not only in terms of more convenient,
equitable, and decent ways to get around, but also the physical
health of people who aren't subjected to as many emissions,
when we have more thoughtful and more wide-ranging options for
people to get around, including active transportation, and
excellent public transit.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Excellent point. Mr. Secretary, the
GHG performance measure is a great step, but what else is DOT
doing to help ensure that the IIJA is part of the solution to
emissions and climate change?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, certainly I would point to the
Carbon Reduction Program, which provides dedicated funding for
the purpose of making transportation investments that reduce
the carbon intensity of the U.S. transportation sector, but
that's far from the only set of resources that are going to
make a big difference. Again, pretty much any investment that
you make in transit is likely to reduce carbon emissions, but
it's that much more so on investments like the low- and no-
emission bus program, which helps local jurisdictions and
transit authorities to acquire clean, efficient, electric, or
otherwise low-emission buses for their routes, saving taxpayer
money in the long run when they do so.
We've got $7.5 billion for building out the electric
charging infrastructure across the country, including,
importantly, $2.5 billion which is allowing us to make
community charging investments, knowing that there are some
places, often low-income places, where fuel savings might mean
the most to a family if they could access an EV, but where it
might not yet be profitable to install one. And so, we think we
can buy down that difference and stimulate access to EVs in
multifamily dwellings, for example, and in dense neighborhoods
just as we're building out that network across the U.S. on the
longer stretches of highway. So, just about every corner of our
infrastructure policy holds the promise of helping us combat
the climate challenge, and we're committed to making sure that
we do everything that the law provides for us to do in that
regard.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Absolutely. As you know, the
transportation sector is one of the most unionized sectors in
the country. Can you speak to how U.S. DOT is going to put
those principles into practice?
Secretary Buttigieg. Yes. We know that it's vitally
important to do so, and I think that what we really need to
make sure of is to engage all of the players who have an
opportunity to participate in the workforce of the future,
because this is not just a question of fairness, although
that's reason enough to ensure that we are bringing in people
from backgrounds that have been excluded from these labor
opportunities in the past, and supporting high-paying, good
jobs with the opportunity to join a union. But it's also simply
going to be necessary in order for us to get the work done,
because this will require more of the American people and the
American workforce than perhaps any national undertaking since
World War II.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and Mr.
Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Van
Duyne for 5 minutes.
Ms. Van Duyne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate you being here today, Secretary Buttigieg. It's good
to see you again, and I'm always going to call you mayor, just
because that's how I know you. I appreciate you coming to the
DFW Airport, and I'm glad that you were able to meet with my
colleague from Texas. DFW Airport is smack-dab in the middle of
my district. I'm a former board member, so, next time you come
in town, more than 24 hours' notice would really be appreciated
so that I can make sure that I'm actually there.
Interesting comment about the EVs earlier from my colleague
from New Jersey. The quote was made that as more people buy
EVs, the price of gas goes down. Correct me if I'm mistaken,
but we've got more people driving EVs now than we ever have in
our history, and I haven't seen anything but gas prices go up.
Part of the concern is as we continue to see the incentives for
EV, they seem to be getting a free ride on our highways, even
though because of their weight--considerable weight over ``gas-
guzzling''--to use that quote--other vehicles, that they're no
doubt causing more damage to the roads.
So, are you concerned that the weight of the EVs and their
lack of paying for the roads that they're driving on--I mean,
my chief concern is, OK, if less people are paying gas taxes
because we're giving that pass to EVs, they're causing more of
the damage, and we're not going to have the maintenance on
that.
Secretary Buttigieg. So, I think there are two sides of the
coin to think about. On one hand, as you point out, EVs don't
pay--if it's a fully electric vehicle, you're not paying the
gas tax, which is traditionally how we've funded the Highway
Trust Fund. On the other hand, we know that ultimately there
will be less expense to Medicaid, for example, for fewer
children suffering from asthma that's a consequence of living
near areas that have a lot of traffic with traditional
combustion vehicles. We know that there are very real dollars
and cents costs to allowing climate change to continue to
accelerate. And so, we need to balance those----
Ms. Van Duyne [interrupting]. Yes, I'm concerned right now
on paying for our infrastructure bill, this massive
infrastructure bill that we just passed. And you just took away
the pay-for if you're incentivizing them to drive EVs. We have
no pay now, and they're causing a considerable amount of damage
on the roads.
Secretary Buttigieg. Right. So, a couple things here. One,
as you know, the IIJA sought to use not increased user fees,
but other sources of funding in order to make those investments
possible. But two, this legislation, falling in line with
previous transportation bills, created pilots for States to
look at alternatives for how they want to fund their roads for
those that rely on gas taxes, as many States do. And we
recognize that different States are going to come up with
different approaches here. We think we'll learn a lot from
them. I think it's relatively early in that process, but we're
interested to see the data.
Ms. Van Duyne. Yes. The problem with it being early in the
process is we've already passed the bill. We just don't have
any way of paying for it. So, while we can set up these test
projects in other States, the fact is, is that we're already
going to have the debt, and we've got no pay-for for it.
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, it's not that we have no pay-for
for it, it's just that we will have less revenue from electric
vehicles into the particular pay-for that has been favored by
Congress----
Ms. Van Duyne [interrupting]. Allocated for.
Secretary Buttigieg [continuing]. In the past.
Ms. Van Duyne. So, we're going to have to find it somewhere
else in the budget.
Secretary Buttigieg. Right, so, typically, it's been
general fund, and that's one way to do it.
Ms. Van Duyne [interposing]. Yes.
Secretary Buttigieg. But far from the only way.
Ms. Van Duyne. Yes. In many instances, you are empowered
and directed by Congress to ensure that Federal laws protect
transportation workers, passengers, and the movement of goods.
Consistent Federal standards help to protect interstate
commerce and prevent a State or circuit court from making
decisions that would impact the entire country, or from
creating conflicting standards around the country, which would
make compliance confusing, impossible, or unnecessarily costly.
Are you concerned about the challenges to the Department's
Federal authority that would create a patchwork of State
regulations? And specifically, I am talking about what's
happening in California.
Secretary Buttigieg. So, there's always a balance that we
know has to be struck principally between Congress and the
courts and the States on what ought to be a Federal power and
what ought to be a State power. We think that often things seem
to go best when the Federal standard amounts to a floor, not a
ceiling, and then some States who want to make sure that
there's even more done for the well-being of their workers, or
for health or whatever the particular thing is that they
regulate----
Ms. Van Duyne [interrupting]. I'm sorry. My time is rapidly
going down, but do you know how many DOT registered motor
carriers have only one truck?
Secretary Buttigieg. No, I don't.
Ms. Van Duyne. So, it's about 300,000. So, as we continue
to see crisis after crisis with our supply chain, what would
happen to our supply chain in the country and these small
business owners if the U.S. were to ban their ability to work
as independent contractors for large motor carriers?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, we certainly need to find a way
for them to be able to work effectively, if not in traditional
models, then in new ones, but again, that's something that's
being resolved between the courts and the State right now.
We're not a party to that litigation.
Ms. Van Duyne. So, you don't think that the DOT has any
play in what's happening to basically cut our supply chain
countrywide?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, of course we have a lot of play
in what's happening to our supply chain. That's why I work on
it all the time. We're just not party to the litigation.
Ms. Van Duyne. No, but are you planning on getting involved
at all, or are you just waiting for the courts to decide?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, we're working on dozens of
things related to truckdriver availability, but in this
particular regard, we're not a party to the litigation.
Ms. Van Duyne. All right. All right, thank you very much.
Ms. Norton [presiding]. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Five minutes, Mr. Auchincloss. You are recognized.
Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary, welcome
back. We appreciate your engagement in this hearing. And for
me, as somebody who has worked in the future of mobility in the
private sector and the public sector and academia, it's just so
heartening to have a Secretary of the Transportation
Department, a former mayor who took on parking minimums, and
who understands that we need to move our infrastructure away
from car-centric planning and development and towards a future
of human-centric infrastructure and walkability.
After the passage of the bipartisan infrastructure bill, I
held one on one meetings with leaders of every city and town in
my district to hear about their infrastructure priorities.
There are a lot, but one overarching one is expanding commuter
rail access, and in Newton, Massachusetts, the commuter rail
there, the three stations that comprise it is not currently
fully ADA accessible. As your Department prepares to issue your
NOFO for the All Stations Accessibility Program, can you
discuss both the timeline for applications as well as the
criteria that you'll use beyond local, State, and Federal
alignment?
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. The All Stations
Accessibility Program is going to provide unprecedented
dedicated resources to help upgrade legacy rail stations for
people with disabilities. And it's worth noting that a great
many legacy rail stations that were built before 1990 and the
ADA are not accessible.
In fact, about 25 percent, so that's 927 stations across 17
systems remain inaccessible--I guess one of the reasons why we
understand the sense of urgency about putting these dollars to
work. This year's slice of the program, based on the funding
Congress provided, will be about $350 million, and we're close
to being able to put out the Notice of Funding Opportunity. As
a matter of fact, I think by the end of the month we'll be able
to do that. It's a new program every time, and we have over 40
new programs. Of course, it takes a little more time to bring
together than new iterations of the programs that had been
there all along, but I still believe we'll be able to make
award announcements by later on this year, and the NOFO will
have more information about how we're going to prioritize, but
I expect we'll get a lot of applications, because we know the
need is very great.
Mr. Auchincloss. Well, Secretary, I'd welcome you in the
district to come tour the new commuter rail station and see the
opportunities inherent in improving it. I'd like to also ask
you about microtransit.
This technology has helped transform communities by
providing affordable and flexible transit solutions, often by
ensuring critical connections to pre-existing transit hubs and
filling so-called transit deserts in underserved urban and
rural areas. And earlier this year, 14 of my colleagues and I
sent you a letter urging you to provide flexibility in the IIJA
programs for the inclusion of on-demand transit. I'd appreciate
hearing your thoughts on how the Department is going to support
and encourage the use of microtransit across the country as you
implement the IIJA.
Secretary Buttigieg. So, we've seen how beneficial and how
filled with potential microtransit is. I think it's also safe
to say it just wasn't what folks had in mind when most of our
U.S. transportation policy and legislation was set up.
So, part of what we're trying to do is find ways to flex
funding within existing programs--to make clear, when we're
confident that the law will allow for it--that jurisdictions
can do this. A good example is CMAQ, the Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality funding, has a lot of flex eligibilities. But
working with Federal highways, we think we can do that in a
number of existing programs like the Highway Safety Improvement
Program, and work it into some of the new ones that we're
bringing online, like the Safe Streets for All Program.
We've seen successful micromobility programs all over the
country, including I would note not just in cities where I
think people easily imagine scooters or e-bikes being used, but
also in rural areas from Alabama to Delaware. And we also have
some FTA research and demonstration funds that in certain
circumstances could be used to help here.
And I think this really is part of the answer for the long
run on how that first or last mile works for people interacting
with the transit system going forward. So, we're going to do
everything we can to be flexible and supportive here.
Mr. Auchincloss. That's terrific, and I would also add that
in addition to micromobility, on-demand transit as well, to
fill those transit deserts, is critical. I want to give you,
Secretary, the last 30 seconds just to talk about airline
staffing. I know you are frustrated. My constituents are
frustrated, and I am frustrated about the cancellations. You
have been on top of it. Can you explain what you are working on
this summer?
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. Yes. We were especially
concerned after the Memorial Day travel weekend disruptions
that happened here. And it is clear that while we welcome the
fact that demand has returned, passengers are going back on
those vacations that they had put off either because of
financial or direct COVID concerns or both, we are seeing now
that the airlines aren't prepared to meet that demand in many
cases.
Also, we have seen a number of steps since those
conversations that I had with airline leadership that I think
are very positive. We have seen increased pay, including a lot
of regional carriers, which have struggled most to hold onto
pilots. We have seen more attention going into customer service
and staffing customer service. And on the FAA side, we are
working on anything we can do to make sure that air traffic
control resources are allocated in ways that are helpful too.
Mr. Auchincloss [interrupting]. Secretary, I am----
Secretary Buttigieg. There is a long way to go.
Mr. Auchincloss. I am over time, so, I have to cut you off
there. Maybe another Member wants to give you some time more to
talk about airline staffing, but I yield back, Madam Chair.
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman yields back.
I recognize Mr. Rouzer for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Mr. Secretary,
great to see you. It is good to have you here in person in the
committee. I think this might be one of the first committee
hearings we have had where the witnesses have been here live or
the witness is here live. So, thank you for being here.
I will get right to the point, but I'll preface that with
this: We all understand that you need to have rules for the
road, but you don't necessarily need a stoplight every 10 feet.
And that kind of sums up my philosophy as it relates to
regulatory structure. And to that end, I note that, according
to the Council on Environmental Quality, the average time for
an EIS or environmental impact statement under the NEPA process
was more than 7 years for FAA and the Federal Highway
Administration projects before the Trump administration
streamlined NEPA in 2020.
But of course, as you know, this administration has
reversed those efforts as it relates to NEPA. And so, I am just
curious. How do we reconcile the immediate need for big
infrastructure projects with the administration's efforts to
prolong and really delay important projects? Time is money. And
there are a number of us that feel like those NEPA reforms were
very much needed and very helpful had they been allowed to be
implemented fully rather than being reversed.
Secretary Buttigieg. We think that we can deliver projects
promptly and swiftly without throwing environmental or other
concerns out the window. And we are committed to finding ways
to make sure that the process goes as smoothly as possible. The
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides a lot of the terms for
doing that, including starting a short clock on a process that
we met, I think, within 60 days on categorical exclusions as
well as things that are going to be more long term in terms of
measures to make the process easier to navigate or make it
simpler in some way.
I do want to point out that, on our transportation--
certainly our Federal highway programs, 98 percent of them fall
under a categorical exclusion, which means we can usually turn
that around in about a month. But there are those longer EIS
and EA processes where the--as you say, time is money. And it
is very important, while meeting the requirements of the law,
making sure that the processes have been followed that there is
no unnecessary delay or redundancy. And I think, again, the
infrastructure law sets us up for that by calling for that 2-
year median or average. We are working to make sure we are on
track for that and other measures that I think will help too.
Mr. Rouzer. Well, all that sounds good. But I don't really
think, in practicality, that is truly the case. But for time's
sake, I need to move on to a couple other things. With regard
to the short line freight rail industry, a couple things as it
relates to this. Obviously, you are familiar with the
Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Grant
Program. The infrastructure bill added some more resources for
that.
Can you comment on the Department's commitment towards
using that particular program to invest in key safety goals
like allowing short line freight rail to upgrade and make
important repairs? And then a quick followup to that: Do you
agree the program helps short line railroads improve the
efficiency of the supply chain?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thanks for the question. I think
short line railroads are more important than ever, as we have
seen in the context of the renewed attention to the supply
chain. So, we need to make sure that we are supporting them.
Around the time we rolled out the CRISI Grants for this year, I
had the pleasure of visiting one in Michigan. And we know there
are similar ones across the country. So, when it comes to the
CRISI program, which our last round was $368 million. And we
will have that much more funding thanks to the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law. We certainly see that this is going to be a
very important source of support for all railroads, certainly
to include short lines.
Mr. Rouzer. Yes. Given that is the case, I am a little bit
perplexed, though, that the Department is moving forward with a
new crew staffing rule that could require railroads to hire
more personnel or operate with more people in the train than is
necessary. Now, if that goes forward, over time, it could force
hundreds of small business short line freight railroads to make
artificial and inefficient economic and management decisions
instead of putting those resources into capital improvements--
to track, for example--structures that are critical for the
efficient movement of goods and services. Why is U.S. DOT
considering forcing these small businesses to hire workers they
don't need when, in fact, quite frankly, it is hard to find a
worker anyway?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, the reason for the rule is
safety. And I don't want to preempt what is coming. I think,
any day now, actually, in terms of NPRM that will have more of
the specifics. But the intention here is to make sure that we
continue to meet our fundamental obligation as a Department to
ensure that we have safety for workers and anybody who comes
into contact with our rail system while being as
straightforward and as reasonable as possible for the benefit
of goods movement and fluidity.
Mr. Rouzer. Well, again, that sounds good. But I don't
necessarily think--in fact, I know that is not necessary. They
ought to be allowed to invest their resources in areas where it
is going to create more efficiency and allow for us to overcome
these supply chain challenges.
Madam Chair, my time has expired. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman yields back.
I recognize Ms. Bourdeaux. Ms. Bourdeaux, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bourdeaux. Thank you so much, and thank you, Madam
Chairman, Ranking Member, for holding today's hearing. And
thank you, Secretary Buttigieg, for being here today. Mr.
Secretary, I want to start by thanking you for visiting
Georgia's Seventh Congressional District last summer. It was a
pleasure to have you and show you all the innovative work going
on at Peachtree Corners around autonomous vehicles and electric
charging. And please know that you are always welcome back.
Last year, members of this committee and our colleagues in
the Senate came together to pass the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act, a historic and bipartisan once-in-a-generation
investment in our Nation's physical infrastructure.
Like many of my colleagues here today, I was proud to
support this legislation, and I am grateful for the
administration's partnership in getting the money out the door
to our partners on the ground. There is a lot to talk about
here. But just to focus on a couple issues that are really
important to Georgia's Seventh Congressional District, one is
microtransit. And the other is electric vehicles.
I know that you have already answered some of my questions
about microtransit when some other of my colleagues asked them
earlier. I just want to reiterate it is very, very important.
My district is a suburban community. It has been hard to get
consensus around bus rapid transit, other forms of transit. And
so, microtransit is very, very helpful, particularly for our
cities, which form these important hubs all over the district.
And I hear from people all the time about how much they
really appreciate the microtransit we have been able to get in
and how much more they would like to see of that particular
innovation in our community. Talking about electric vehicles,
very proud of the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
Program and glad to see that the State of Georgia received
nearly $20 million in fiscal year 2022 as a part of $135
million over 5 years to support efforts to expand EV charging
across the State. So, just touching on that for a few minutes,
could you talk a little bit about whether there have been
hurdles getting the new National Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure Program off the ground and then also, how the
administration has prioritized consumer experience to ensure it
is easy, consistent, and mirrors their current experience at
the pump?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. First of all, thank
you for the great visit we had to Georgia and some very
impressive things we saw both in terms of policy and in terms
of technology on the ground. And as your question hints, there
is tons of opportunity but a lot of challenge in getting it
right with this electric vehicle infrastructure, especially
because we have not had something like this at scale in the
U.S.
It is very different from the infrastructure for fueling
gas cars, and we need to be mindful of that as we go. One thing
we are thinking about in particular with regard to the consumer
experience is making sure that these charging stations are
interoperable and are available. You can imagine if you are
taking a road trip and every third or fourth gas pump didn't
work. Or if you had to be a member of a particular gas station
chain in order to even use the pump, that would not be a
positive or efficient experience.
But in some places and in some cases in the past, that is
what some EV drivers have faced. And so, we need to make sure
that we are not only getting the dots in the right places on
the maps but paying attention to the quality as well as the
quantity of these EV charging stations, especially those that
would be supported with taxpayer funds. So, those are some of
the things that are on our mind as we work in close
collaboration with my colleagues at the Department of Energy
through these issues.
And I have to say it is, in my view, a remarkably positive
example of interagency cooperation to see how the Department of
Energy has teamed up with the DOT to work through these
issues--some where we have more expertise, some where they have
more expertise--put our heads together and get a good plan
going to meet the President's goals.
Ms. Bourdeaux. And just to follow up on that, we recently
had a company, Siemens, that rolled out some innovative new
electric charging infrastructure that can be easily deployed to
gas stations or convenience stores. But the challenge is the
grid and the ability to plug into the grid. So, we can get the
basic technology on the ground. What is going on with that? How
are you all thinking about integrating the overhaul of the grid
that is required in order to support electric vehicle charging?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, there is no way we are going to
be able to run tomorrow's cars on yesterday's grid. And it is
one of the reasons why we are thankful for the ways that the
infrastructure law contemplates and supports upgrades for
America's electrical infrastructure. And here I will yield to
the Department of Energy, which has more of the day-to-day
expertise on this work. But again, we are integrating it with
our work on the EV side through that joint office.
And we know that is vitally important because we need to
have the backbone of electric infrastructure to support the
electric charging infrastructure that we are funding.
Ms. Bourdeaux. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
I recognize Mrs. Steel for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ranking
Member Graves. Once again, California State has 40 percent of
the Nation's imported goods and 30 percent of the Nation's
exported goods moving through just two of its ports, Los
Angeles and Long Beach.
It is implementing AB5, a law that will worsen the Nation's
supply chain crisis by upending the independent contractor
model used by the trucking industry. Mr. Secretary, as AB5
would impact 70,000 truckers alone just in California, what is
your Department doing to lessen the impact of this bill on our
national economy?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, the availability of trucking
workers is a critically important part of the supply chain
challenge. It is one of the reasons why we have been working on
this from day one, taking measures both to help recruit new
truckdrivers and to support the kind of job quality
improvements that we believe will help us to retain more
truckdrivers in the career. Our Bureau of Transportation
Statistics estimates that some 300,000 people leave the
profession on a yearly basis. And we have taken steps that we
think have successfully helped to move the needle on some of
those systemic challenges.
So, we are going to continue those efforts. They are all in
line with the President's Trucking Action Plan. And we will
continue doing that as we wait for more information and
guidance from the State of California about State policies.
Mrs. Steel. Shortage of drivers is part of it. But not just
a shortage of drivers. In California, these independent
truckers cannot really come in. So, you are cochair of the
Supply Chain Disruptions Task Force. And I know that you
developed the Trucking Action Plan. But I haven't seen you and
other members of the administration encourage the ILWU,
International Longshore and Warehouse Union, and PMA, Pacific
Maritime Association, to come to the table to keep freight
flowing through L.A. and Long Beach. Why aren't you doing the
same for independent truckers, because, as of now, we have such
a shortage of truckers, and these independent truckers can come
in. I think that is going to reduce our supply chain crisis
much more. So, why shouldn't they get the same type of
exemptions that gig workers and entertainers get who are an
impetus for the law?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, again, to the extent that this
is a State law, we respect the role of the State of the
California. We are in touch with them, and we know that they
have indicated that the California Labor Agency is working with
those who need assistance coming into compliance and that they
are looking at the supply chain factors too. This is one piece
of a very big puzzle, and we are doing everything we can on the
pieces that are up to us federally while respecting the areas
in which we are not formally part of the process.
Mrs. Steel. So, you are not really working with--Governor
Newsom just visited last week here. And you never had a meeting
with him that--you know what--he could not actually declare the
state of emergency by pass--AB5. So, it is going to actually
loosen a little more of the supply chain crisis. So, you never
really did that. And what that California Trucking Association
sue [inaudible] refused to hear that what that is going to--
really impacting for this supply chain crisis.
Secretary Buttigieg. So, again, we are not part of the
lawsuit that you referred to. We are not a party to it. And it
doesn't have a Federal procedural role in that sense. We are,
obviously, continuing to monitor anything and everything that
can affect throughput in our ports or in any part of the goods
movement system in the U.S. And we will work with any party
that has ideas or has needs in order to make sure that goods
keep moving as they need to.
Mrs. Steel. Just my last question is so you have a
communication [inaudible] between the California Governor's
Office and your Department to solve this problem?
Secretary Buttigieg. So, we will respect the role of the
State but always be prepared to engage on anything we can do to
be supportive or helpful toward the goal of making sure there
is good throughput.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. The gentlewoman yields back. I recognize Mr.
DeSaulnier for 5 minutes. You are recognized.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate
that. Mr. Secretary, it is delightful to see you. Thank you for
your really extraordinary work on this. We sort of miss, I
think--some of my colleagues have mentioned the historic nature
of this and how difficult it has been for both Republican and
Democratic administrations to get this bill. I want to
specifically talk to you as somebody who served three different
Governors in the California Air Resources Board and served on
the California Transportation Commission, has put a lot of time
in the last 25 years in alternative fuels and our renewable
portfolio standard.
And I was also the author, some of the conversation in the
legislature about the VMT bill with the full expectation that
that's where we would recover our funding. California has 42
percent of the EV and fuel cell market in the United States.
But we have the chicken-and-egg problem with infrastructure.
So, I want to talk to you about that. I was very, very happy
that a bill that's a priority of mine was incorporated into the
infrastructure bill, the Clean Corridors bill, to provide this
infrastructure. We have a proportionate amount of
infrastructure but putting it in the right place to make it
effective.
And we can see this in the private sector. And Madam Chair,
I would like to submit for the record an article from Forbes
magazine that is entitled ``Every Automaker's EV Plans Through
2035 and Beyond'' if I could.
Ms. Norton. It has been received.
[The information follows:]

Forbes.com, updated October 4, 2021
https://www.forbes.com/wheels/news/automaker-ev-plans/

There's no longer any doubt that the auto industry is going
electric. Every international automaker is introducing battery cars,
and plug-in hybrid options are increasingly part of model lines. But
some auto companies have gone further, and actually set dates for when
they will produce only ``electrified'' cars (batteries and hybrids)
and/or pure EVs. Others have set dates certain when they're going to
stop developing internal-combustion engines. Some have already stopped.
Here, in alphabetical order, is a rundown of where all the world's
automakers stand on going electric. Obviously, we're not including
startup companies such as Lucid, Rivian, Bollinger and Fisker. Like
Tesla, they're all-electric from Day One and Job One.
There are three levels of electrification. A hybrid vehicle uses
gasoline and a bit of electricity; the battery drives the car a mile or
two and recharges when the car slows or goes downhill. Hybrid vehicles
boost fuel economy but they're not seen as a long-term solution. A
plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV or plug-in) uses a battery about
10 times as big as a hybrid and can drive the car 20 to 50 miles before
the gasoline engine kicks in, meaning it can be a full-electric as a
commuter car Monday to Friday, then act as a traditional car on
weekends. It's a bridge technology good through 2030 or 2040. A battery
electric vehicle (EV or BEV) runs only on battery power; the largest
batteries are five to 10 times as big as a plug-in's battery. Hydrogen
fuel cells can also produce electricity for propulsion.
EVs and PHEVs need chargers and both are eligible for federal tax
credits of up to $7,500 if the battery is big enough.
Bentley
Perhaps the most unlikely candidate for early electrification on
this list, Bentley is nevertheless all in. By 2026, all its cars will
be plug-in hybrids or all-electric, and by 2030, goodbye tailpipes.
According to CEO Adrian Hallmark, ``The future of Bentley will be fully
electric. By 2030, no more combustion engines. We are not only working
on one electric car but a full family of electric cars.'' Bentley's
first EV will arrive in 2025, and it's expected to be an SUV built on
the VW Group's Artemis platform.
BMW
The automaker from Bavaria is a holdout among the German carmakers
in terms of fully electric vehicles, as opposed to here-and-now plug-
ins. CEO Oliver Zipse says that gas engine development will continue
and that demand for internal combustion ``will remain robust for many
years to come'' and most of BMW's top-selling models have plug-in
versions, including the X3, X5, 3 Series, 5 Series and 7 Series. But
BMW is undoubtedly BEV-electrifying, too. Zipse also said, in March,
``By the end of 2025, we will have delivered a total of around two
million fully electric vehicles to customers. We will also be growing
our sales of fully electric models by well over 50% per year over the
next few years--more than 10 times the figure for 2020.'' By 2030, the
company said approximately half its global sales will be battery cars.
The electric iX SUV and i4 sedan are both market-bound now. For the
high-end European makers--Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche--they
justified lofty prices with high levels of performance and technology.
Now technology encompasses zero-emissions performance.
Ford
The automaker made a big splash with the F-150 Lightning, an
electric version of the best-selling vehicle in the U.S., in part
because it will offer 230 miles of range for less than $40,000. A small
hybrid truck called the Maverick is also very competitively priced
($19,995). Ford is investing $22 billion through 2025 to deliver
battery EVs, and plans to be carbon neutral by 2050, but the company
still sees a role for hybrids with gas engines.
General Motors
The General says it plans to stop selling gas and diesel vehicles
by 2035. GM admits it's an aspirational goal. But Cadillac is deeply
committed. The division said in April that it plans to offer no new
models with internal-combustion engines, but will update some existing
vehicles. And by 2030, the Cadillac lineup will be all-electric. The
first offering will be the Lyriq crossover SUV next year. The electric
Hummers, in pickup and SUV form, are coming, with pickup production to
begin this fall. Chevrolet also recently updated the Bolt EV, and an
electric version of the Silverado truck is coming in 2023 or 2024 with
400 miles of range from its Ultium batteries. GM's carbon neutrality is
planned by 2040.
Honda
The Japanese automaker will sell only EVs and hybrids in Europe
after 2022. By 2030, Honda says 40 percent of its North American
vehicle sales will be either battery electric or hydrogen, and by 2040
all gas cars will be phased out. Honda's first two EVs (one Honda SUV
called the Prologue, one Acura) in 2024 will be built by GM, but
according to Dave Gardner, a North American vice president, ``It's
absolutely our intention to produce in our factories. We absolutely
intend to utilize that resource.'' Honda is one of a handful of
automakers pushing hydrogen (fuel cells) instead of batteries as fuel
sources. The company has been building Clarity fuel cell electric
vehicles (FCEVs) since 2008; the Clarity name also applies to
traditional EVs and plug-ins.
Hyundai-Kia
The Hyundai Motor Group hasn't made a commitment to go all-
electric, but it said that it would invest $7.4 billion to produce
future EVs in the U.S. by 2025. Hyundai's EV production is to continue
with the Hyundai Ioniq 5 in the fall and the Kia EV6 in 2022. A 50
percent cut in internal-combustion models was announced in May. Hyundai
has also made a big commitment to fuel cells, especially in its Korean
home market. Kia is promising seven dedicated battery electrics by the
end of 2027, and plans global sales of half a million battery cars
annually by 2026. EVs (including hybrids) are expected to be 25 percent
of global sales in 2029. In South Korea, North America and Europe, EVs
will be 20 percent of Kia sales by 2025. Hyundai believes fuel cell 18-
wheelers make more sense for cross-country runs than heavy batteries
and in 2019 showed the Hyundai HDC-6 Neptune concept, a self-driving
(except the first and last miles) hydrogen truck with onboard bunk,
toilet and shower. Since the fuel cell's exhaust is water, the shower
never runs out. This year, Hyundai deployed a small fleet of more
mainstream Hyundai XCient fuel-cell 18-wheelers in California. No
onboard shower.
Jaguar Land Rover
Under a plan called ``Reimagine,'' the brand will be all-electric,
with battery versions of the whole lineup by 2030, with $3.4 billion
investment annually in new technology. JLR already fields the Jaguar I-
Pace, a new version of which will likely sit on the company's new
Electric Modular Architecture (EMA) platform. There will be an electric
Land Rover in 2024, then an electric Range Rover. In total, there will
be six electric Land Rovers over the next five years. A plan to build
an electric Jaguar XJ sedan was scuttled.
Mazda
Under the unforgettable moniker ``Sustainable Zoom-Zoom 2030,''
Mazda will aim for carbon neutrality by 2050. The company said it would
continue to develop internal-combustion powertrains, but will also
introduce a unique EV platform, SkyActive EV Scalable Architecture, in
2025. The platform will be used for five hybrids, five plug-in hybrids,
and three battery EVs by 2025 in the U.S., China and the ASEAN
(Southeast Asian) countries. ``We assume that 100% of our products will
have some level of electrification, and our EV ratio will be 25% by
2030,'' Mazda said. The company's first EV is the MX-30 subcompact
crossover, which will also have a plug-in hybrid variant. It goes on
sale in the U.S. this fall, initially in California.
Mercedes-Benz
Starting in 2025, Mercedes said, all new vehicle platforms will be
EV-only. CEO Ola Kallenius told Reuters, ``We really want to go for it
. . . and be dominantly, if not all electric, by the end of the
decade.'' He added that spending on gasoline technology will be ``close
to zero'' by 2025. And 2030 is a goal for going fully EV, but Kallenius
didn't give a hard deadline for banishing all traces of fossil fuels.
Mercedes is expecting that its investments in combustion engines and
plug-in hybrids will be reduced 80% by 2026. Total investment in EVs
between 2022 and 2030 will be more than 40 billion euros ($47 billion).
The 2022 Mercedes EQS electric luxury sedan arrives in showrooms this
fall.
Mitsubishi
The Japanese automaker was a pioneer with the I-MiEV electric sedan
and Outlander plug-in hybrid. In April, it showed the Airtrek ``e-
cruising SUV,'' designed for the Chinese market, at the Shanghai Motor
Show. With Nissan (see below) shifting to CCS charging starting with
the Ariya, that leaves the Outlander as the only vehicle in the U.S.
still using CHAdeMO.
Nissan
Nissan's Leaf was another early electric entry. The company now
says it will have eight EVs on the road by the end of 2023, and plans
to eventually be selling a million hybrid or electric cars annually
around the world. In early July, it announced EV36Zero, a 1 billion
($N1.3 billion) Electric Vehicle Hub, in Sunderland, England, where it
will build an all-electric crossover. The hub is designed to bring
together EVs, battery production and renewable energy. Nissan's EV
lineup will expand this year with an SUV called the Ariya, which boasts
300-mile range and an 87-kilowatt-hour battery pack. Nissan EVs in the
US starting with Ariya will ditch the proprietary CHAdeMO port in favor
of the CCS (Combined Charging System) charging port that everybody else
(except, of course, Tesla) uses. That would get the charging-plug war
down to two combatants, Tesla and CCS, and make it easier for the
government via the $1 trillion infrastructure plan to build out, or
support, a nationwide charging network.
Rolls-Royce
Rolls is reportedly working on a first-EV called the Silent Shadow,
based on the Phantom. It's expected to use technology from the new BMW
iX SUV. BMW CEO Oliver Zipse said in July that EVs will be offered ``in
90% of segments--from the compact class to the ultra-luxury segment.''
For BMW, ultra-luxury is Rolls-Royce.
Stellantis (formerly Fiat Chrysler)
The old Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) was a slacker when it came
to EVs, but now as Stellantis it's getting into gear. Stellantis plans
to invest more than $35.5 billion in EVs through 2025. An all-electric
full-sized Ram 1500 pickup will arrive in 2024, the same year as an
electric Dodge performance car. Every Jeep will have an EV option by
2025. The Grand Cherokee 4xe plug-in hybrid will be shown at this
year's New York Auto Show, as a 2022 model. The Jeep Wrangler 4xe plug-
in hybrid is on the market now, selling well, and a Wrangler Magneto EV
concept was shown. Stellantis will have 55 electrified cars and trucks
for sale in the U.S. and Europe by 2025. It is planning that 70% of its
European sales, and 40% of its American, will be either battery
electric or plug-in hybrid within four years. But it hasn't given an
all-electric date.
Toyota
Toyota (with a big bet on fuel cells) said that its Toyota bZ4X
Concept electric SUV, developed with Subaru and shown in Texas in June,
is ``the vision for the first of a global series of battery-electric
vehicles to be introduced under the Toyota bZ brand umbrella.'' Toyota
will have 70 electrified models by 2025, 15 of them battery EVs and
seven of them with the Beyond Zero bZ brand. Pickups will also get
electrified, and Toyota has the goal of being carbon neutral by 2050.
Toyota is the market leader among hybrids--the top five sellers are the
Toyotas RAV4, Highlander, Prius and Camry hybrids plus the Honda CR-V--
which (Prius especially) got the world thinking about electrification.
Volkswagen
The Volkswagen brand says that battery EVs will be 70% of its sales
in Europe in 2030, up from a projected 35%. For the U.S. and China, the
VW brand goal is more than 50% full-electric vehicle sales by 2030. The
VW Group has 70 new electrified models in the pipeline, and several
already on the market (including the Porsche Taycan, Audi e-tron and VW
ID. 4). One of these coming soon is the sporty Project Trinity electric
car, with a launch date of 2026. Audi's Project Artemis is to launch a
``highly efficient'' EV by 2024. VW said that 2026 will be the last
year it launches a combustion platform.
Volvo
The Swedish automaker will make only electric cars by 2030. The
sales strategy will also change: ``All fully electric models will be
available online only,'' the company said. Volvo's first all-electric
car, the XC40 Recharge, was launched in 2020. But parent Geely also
fields Polestar (Volvo now owns 49.5%). It's an all-electrified
performance luxury brand, with Polestar 1 (an exclusive plug-in hybrid)
and Polestar 2 (on the same platform as the XC40 Recharge). By 2025,
Volvo said half of its global sales will be fully electric, with the
rest hybrids.

Automaker Plans for Electrification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date for PHEVs-
Vehicle BEVs Only/ lDate Date for Carbon Planned spending Milestones
for BEVs Only Neutrality on EVs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bentley......................... lBy 2026.......... lBy 2030.......... lN/A.............. lFirst battery EV
lBy 2030.......... in 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BMW............................. lN/A.............. l100% renewable l$6.5 billion l2 million fully
lN/A.............. energy by 2050. (2019 figure). electric vehicles
by the end of
2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford............................ lN/A.............. lBy 2050.......... l$22 billion l76% carbon
lN/A.............. through 2025. emissions
reduction by 2035
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadillac........................ lN/A.............. lN/A.............. lN/A.............. lNo new models
lBy 2030.......... with gas engines
now
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors.................. lN/A.............. lBy 2040.......... l$35 billion lElectric Hummers
lBy 2035.......... through 2025. and Silverado
coming
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honda........................... lN/A.............. lBy 2050.......... lN/A.............. l2 new EVs in 2024
l2022 (Europe), to be built by GM
2040 (North
America)..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai-Kia..................... lN/A.............. lUndated pledge... l$7.4 billion in l23 types of EVs
lN/A.............. the U.S. by 2025. and hydrogen cars
by 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jaguar Land Rover............... l100% with some lBy 2039.......... l$3.5 billion l6 electric Land
electrification annually. Rovers over the
by 2030.. next 5 years
lBy 2030..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mazda........................... lN/A.............. lBy 2050.......... lN/A.............. lFirst battery EV
lN/A.............. is the MX-30 in
the fall
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercedes-Benz................... lAll new platforms lBy 2039.......... l$47 billion lEQS luxury sedan
EV-only in 2025.. between 2022 and on sale this fall
l2030 with caveats 2030.
in some markets..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitsubishi...................... lN/A.............. l25% carbon lN/A.............. lA plug-in hybrid
lN/A.............. reduction by 2030. focus. The
Airtrek EV shown
for the Chinese
market.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nissan.......................... lN/A.............. lBy 2050.......... l$1.3 billion on l8 EVs on the road
lN/A.............. EV hub in England. by the end of
2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rolls-Royce..................... lEVs will be lBy 2030.......... lN/A.............. lSilent Shadow is
available in 90% in development,
of segments.. using BMW
lN/A.............. technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stellantis...................... l70% of European lN/A.............. l$35.5 billion in l55 electrified
sales, 40% of EV spending cars and trucks
North American through 2025. for sale in the
sales electrified U.S. and Europe
in 4 years.. by 2025
lN/A..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota.......................... l8 million lBy 2050.......... lN/A.............. l70 electrified
electrified models by 2025,
vehicles by 2030.. 15 of them
lN/A.............. battery EVs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volkswagen Group................ l50% fully lBy 2050.......... l$86 billion lThe VW Group has
electric sales in through 2025. 70 new
U.S. by 2030.. electrified
lLast new models in the
combustion pipeline
platform in 2026..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volvo........................... lBy 2025, half of lBy 2040.......... l$1 billion lAll fully
global sales annually on electric models
fully electric.. electrification will be available
lBy 2030.......... and autonomy. online only
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table shows dates automakers say their lineups will comprise only plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and
battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), then only BEVs. Automakers have answered these questions in different ways,
such as describing when the last gas or diesel (combustion) platform comes to market instead of when the maker
will be 100% BEV. Hybrids do not count as electrified vehicles here. Source: Automakers

Automakers have varied dates for shifting from combustion-engine
vehicles toward plug-in hybrids and EVs, then going EV-only. The China
market is a third bigger than the U.S. market, 20 million registrations
vs. 14 million last year (Europe combined had 12 million). China and
Europe want EVs sooner, and no automaker can ignore them. The go-
electric dates above may compress further.

Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you. Let me just read--this is from
Forbes magazine. So, for my colleagues who wonder where the
marketplace is going and respect the marketplace, the
marketplace is clearly going away from internal combustion
engines. There is a place for it. There is a transition.
But this isn't pie in the sky, as somebody who has been
involved with this, and realizes the frustration with battery
technology. We are also just on the cusp of exponential change
on affordability and range and durability on battery-electric.
So, the beginning sentence of this article in Forbes magazine
is, and I quote, ``There's no longer any doubt that the auto
industry is going electric.''
So, to your point about Brandeis and States being the
laboratories of discovery, I understand that different States
are going to have different pathways. We are, as you--I am
sure--know, in places like the bay area, early adapters. The
car companies tell me that. That is why we are moving to this.
Not better or worse. It is just the marketplace.
So, how do we get this infrastructure, in a thoughtful way,
out to make it work? The Chinese are adding 4,000 EV stations a
day. They are adding over 100,000 EV and fuel cell stations a
month. We have a little over 100,000 in the United States. So,
the private sector is going in and trying to fill this out. But
when I talk to the private sector, both the car manufacturers
and the energy manufacturers, we in California have our
renewable portfolio standard. So, it is now going to 50 percent
by 2030. So, from well to wheel, getting that energy clean and
efficient. And then the point I think we miss here is the
importance of our economy to transition to this energy source
and to do it efficiently.
So, how do we do that in the significant investment in this
bill that you have been such a leader on and do it but in a
thoughtful way. Those 12 States that represent over 60 percent
of GDP and the vehicle market in the United States that follows
CARB's leadership under the California waiver, the Clean Air
Act, how do we strategically do this?
Secretary Buttigieg. So, I agree that one thing is certain,
which is this is where industry is headed, and this is where
the world is headed. I think, while that one thing is certain,
at least three important things are not. Will it happen quickly
enough to meet our climate challenge? Will it happen in a way
that America leads? And will it happen in a way that is
equitable for everyone?
And those are the considerations that guide our
involvement, things like the Federal support for charging
stations. If we get it right, what we will be doing is
accelerating it so that it helps us meet our climate goals.
Presenting an American alternative to that Chinese model that
you mentioned is gathering steam there.
And reach people who might otherwise be left out of the
transition at least in its early stages. Knowing some of the
upfront costs that are involved, knowing the charging
infrastructure isn't often available in lower income areas,
even though, provided they could afford to purchase or use an
EV, it is low-income drivers who would benefit the most from
the fuel savings that come with having one.
So, those are the principles that guide the way that we are
framing both the $5 billion in formula funds that the States
will execute according to their plans and then the $2.5 billion
for discretionary work that we will do to effectively fill in
the gaps in communities. And we think, taken together, we have
the tools that will allow us to then stimulate that much more
private sector involvement too, which can help make sure we
actually do this as quickly as the economy and the climate need
us to.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you. Exciting. I yield back.
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman's time has expired.
I recognize Mr. Weber for 5 minutes.
Mr. Weber of Texas. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary,
good to see you here today. I want to quote some of the things
you said in your comments at the very end: ``Together, we have
the opportunity to improve countless lives, support good-paying
jobs, strengthen America's manufacturers, modernize our
infrastructure for decades to come, and cement America's
position as the world's leading economy,'' all good goals.
And we recognize the administration's aim at reducing GHGs
and coming down to as many [inaudible] as possible. I am from
Texas, the gulf coast of Texas. We produce about 65 percent of
the Nation's jet fuel through my six ports that I represent,
more than any other Member of Congress. So, energy for us is a
big deal. Texas is the number one wind energy State in the
country. And I think you might have even alluded to or somebody
else did. We are number two in solar panels, right behind
California.
But we are working on that. We will get there. We will get
there. So, I appreciate you being here and bringing this all
up. I want to bring a couple of projects to your attention that
are called Sea Port Oil Terminals. What they do is they move
product through pipeline out off the shore. It could be 20
miles, 15, 20, 30 miles.
And so, what happens then is they move the product cleaner.
We are going to use oil and natural gas for a while, for a long
while. You are seeing what is happening overseas. You got to
know the Europeans would rather buy from us than from Russia.
What I tell people is that fossil fuels--not the enemy.
Greenhouse gas emissions are. And we are able to produce it
probably cleaner than most other countries in the world.
So, we have a chance to move this product offshore. We move
it faster so it gets to the very large crude containers
offshore. Right now, the other countries in the world are
building huge ships, and they can't come up our canals, our
channels, into our ports. So, what has to happen is they take
smaller ships called lightering. You have probably heard the
term. And they are having to go back and forth numbers of times
while this huge container sits out there, diesel engines idling
most of the time.
And then you are going to have small ships that are having
to make three or four trips, again, diesel engines idling. So,
we can move it faster, less greenhouse gas emissions. We can
move it safer. There is no--much 18-wheelers on the road. There
are no 18-wheeler crashes. There are no tank cars overturning.
I think you actually talked to Mr. Graves about his
district with some wreck in his district. And you have to know
that allies across the world would like this. It helps us with
our imbalance of trade. We actually get to refine product and
sell it, move it around the world. With decades to come, we are
going to have a lot of natural gas, clean natural gas. And you
know this. A lot of these ships are converting to LNG. So, we
want this ability. All that to say that a couple of these
businesses have been in contact with your chief of staff. I
believe it is Laura Schiller. And is she with you today?
Secretary Buttigieg. She is not here today, but she is our
chief of staff.
Mr. Weber of Texas. She had good enough sense to stay away
from this place, didn't she? And then I think your general
counsel, John Putnam----
Secretary Buttigieg [interposing]. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Weber of Texas [continuing]. Is he with you today?
Secretary Buttigieg. Not at the hearing, I don't think.
Mr. Weber of Texas. OK. Well, very good.
Secretary Buttigieg. Keep him pretty busy back at
headquarters.
Mr. Weber of Texas. Well, all of that to say we talked
about the permitting process earlier on with some of our
colleagues up here. And we'd like to move that as quickly as we
can because time is of the essence. And we want to make sure
that we can reduce that permitting process time down to the
least amount. Everybody wants a clean environment. You probably
don't know this about the gulf coast of Texas, but we have got
a lot of hunters and fishermen and stuff like that.
We want good, clean, pristine lands to do all of those
things to pass on for our kids. So, what I would like to do is
to give you [indicating report]--this is actually a report on
what we call SPOT, the Sea Port Oil Terminal, a project in the
national interest, because we can produce it cleaner, faster.
It helps us with our imbalance of trade and actually does a
good job for the economy while protecting the environment and
then see if I could follow back up with you in the coming days
to see if you can kind of get me an update on where both of
these projects are. And any questions from you? We've got 23
seconds.
Secretary Buttigieg. No. I would be happy to do that. We
have got, I know, a lot of permits or license requests in with
the Maritime Administration. And I would be happy to find out
where these two sit among those and certainly appreciate the
complexity of the transition you are describing.
Mr. Weber of Texas. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank
you for being here. And I'll get this over to you, and I yield
back.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman's time has expired.
I recognize Mr. Moulton for 5 minutes. You are recognized,
Mr. Moulton.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, good to see you. Thank you very much for
being here. The IIJA appropriated more money for investing in
rail than ever before in our Nation's history. Now, President
Biden vowed to, quote, ``make sure that America has the
cleanest, safest and fastest rail system in the world.'' Will
this indeed be the administration's legacy? How will you
fulfill the administration's promise, the President's promise?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. We are enthusiastic
about the opportunities here for passenger rail. As you know,
in any other administration, I might count myself the biggest
enthusiast. But I will only ever be second place in this
administration in terms of readiness and commitment to seeing
America have the highest quality rail.
As you mentioned, we have got unprecedented resources to
work with here, the most since the inception of Amtrak itself.
A lot of that is candidly dealing with backlog, dealing with
the underinvestment that has happened in the past but also
opportunities for new high-speed rail in the U.S. And we think
that seeing is believing. The sooner people can see successful
high-speed rail deployed on American soil, the sooner----
Mr. Moulton [interrupting]. I have made this case for a
long time. I completely agree with you. In the May
appropriations hearing on the DOT budget, you said that,
through the IIJA, you hope to establish high-speed rail, quote,
``in at least two or three geographies.'' Have you identified
those corridors yet?
Secretary Buttigieg. So, I can tell you that FRA has been
in dialogue with a number of project sponsors or involved in
some way in a number of high-speed projects, certainly, of
course, California, which has been discussed here. The
Brightline West vision, Dallas to Houston, those have all been
on FRA's desk in some way or another. But of course we are
still early in the life of the deployment of the Federal-State
partnership dollars and other resources that could make a
difference here. And I don't want to prejudice any upcoming
applications.
Mr. Moulton. Well, I understand, but we are not early in
the administration's timeline here. These projects take some
time and I just want to emphasize that if this is going to be
President Biden's legacy, if President Biden is going to be
known as the father of developing rail in the United States,
not the old-fashioned rail that we have but high-speed rail
that is truly the envy of the world and that a lot of Americans
actually want to ride, then we have got to get cracking on
identifying those corridors.
Yesterday, dozens and dozens of flights were canceled on
the Northeast Corridor, mine among them, because of a strange
and unusual phenomenon called thunderstorms. The rest of the
world would be able to get from Washington to Boston in 3 hours
on a train every 20 minutes with never a delay for weather. Not
only are we not there, but we're moving in the wrong direction.
In 2010, Amtrak proposed reducing travel times in the Northeast
Corridor to 1 hour and 36 minutes from Washington to New York
and 1 hour and 24 minutes from New York to Boston, yet 7 years
later in 2017 trip time goals went up from 1:36 to 2:10 and
from 1:24 to 2:45, almost 3 hours. Just a year later they
increased again to 2:29 and 3:08.
So, we are not only behind China and the rest of the world,
we're going in the wrong direction. I mean, at this rate, the
goals Amtrak sets 10 years from now will be worse than how long
it takes to travel that roller coaster ride on the Northeast
Corridor today. So, to meet the President's promise of the
fastest trains in the world, we need a transformative
investment, not just repairing an old line that is too slow by
definition by the way it was laid out in the 1830s but actually
building a new railway the same way that we didn't just repair
Route 1, we built 95.
So, how will you make that happen with the discretionary
funds in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act?
Secretary Buttigieg. So, with the dollars that we have for
the Northeast Corridor, first there is some needs that need to
be met in terms of safety and reliability for the long run. But
where you really begin to start gaining minutes comes in a
couple of ways. One is improving certain areas where there is,
just because of the condition of the track, a need to slow
down, but the other to your point where you see the most
possibility for gain is actual realignment. That obviously
brings a lot of complexity with it, but to meet the more
aggressive and ambitious goals, we need to take the dollars as
far as they will go in that direction, and I know that is what
Amtrak is working on right now.
Mr. Moulton. Well, let's make sure that we don't throw good
money after bad. I think that is the key point here. If we're
going to fulfill the President's promise of the fastest trains
in the world, then they're not going to run on an old-fashioned
Northeast Corridor. We can't just spread funds out to every
State in the Union. We have got to pick a couple of high-speed
rail projects that will succeed and so that Americans can see
the value of high-speed rail whether you live in California or
the Northeast or in Texas or in the Southeast.
The most popular high-speed rail corridor in the world is
about the same distance as Atlanta to Chicago. Think about all
the cities in between Chicago and Atlanta that you could serve
with 250-mile-per-hour service. It would be transformative for
this country. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman's time has expired.
I recognize Ms. Malliotakis. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Malliotakis. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here
today. I want to talk about this administration and New York
City's latest scheme when it comes to the war on cars. This is
a pure cash grab, and it is the congestion pricing plan that
was passed by the New York State Legislature and signed by our
Governor and supported by the mayor. But I am certainly
opposed, and I think that this is simply--to try to impose a
$35 fee potentially to drive within your own city, it is just
completely outrageous, and it adds to why New York is such a
high tax State not only dealing with the high gas prices, the
highest probably among--one of the highest in the Nation, but
high tolls.
We have the skyrocketing costs of used cars. Everything has
gone up in terms if you want to be a driver, and people need to
drive to get to where they have to go particularly in cash-
starved communities. In New York City, we also have speed
cameras. You name it, we have it, if it is going to collect
cash, unfortunately. But this is what I seem to believe is
another cash grab by our city interstate.
It is going to be the first in the Nation, and with that I
understand that also the Federal Highway Administration has
responsibility to oversee an environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement. I believe being that it is
going to be the first in the Nation, we have the responsibility
to do our due diligence, and we should be conducting an
environmental impact statement versus a simple assessment. Can
you please talk a little bit more about will you be requiring
the MTA and New York City to be conducting a full and thorough
EIS as well as it should be an economic impact study as well?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, our responsibility is to make
sure that a project that comes forward with local sponsorship
and interest like the congestion pricing project meets all
Federal legal requirements, including under NEPA. I can't say
here whether based on sitting here all of the things that go
into the determination of whether it is the EA track or the
full EIS. I can say that our Department will bring its best
judgment to making sure that it goes through the appropriate
process.
And our role is to make sure that all of those Federal
hurdles are responsively met but recognizing and respecting
that ultimately this is a local policy choice.
Ms. Malliotakis. Yes, but, first of all, there is
bipartisan opposition among legislators and Members of Congress
from the New York/New Jersey area as it will have a significant
impact on our constituents who are already struggling to get by
and make ends meet. Now, earlier this year, the MTA chief
executive, Janno Lieber, said in an interview that the FHWA
told him that they were going to fast track the environmental
process. Can you make a commitment that you will require an
environmental impact study, a full and thorough review being
that this is a first in the Nation program that is--I don't
want my constituents to be guinea pigs. We need to do this
right.
I believe that we shouldn't be doing it at all, but if
you're going to do it, at least do the due diligence in making
sure that we are dotting our i's, crossing our t's, and seeing
what the actual impact will be on businesses, on the
surrounding community, on the residents that live in the
central district but also the other residents of the city from
the outer boroughs that have to commute in.
Secretary Buttigieg. I can commit to you that the review
will be proper and thorough, no unnecessary delays but no cut
corners either.
Ms. Malliotakis. Will you do an environmental impact study,
though, a complete study, not just an assessment? That is
really the question.
Secretary Buttigieg. Again, the legal determination about
whether it falls into an EA or an EIS is not one that I want to
make sitting here, but I can tell you that the review either
way will be proper and thorough on our part.
Ms. Malliotakis. Well, if it is going to be proper and
thorough, then that would be the EIS. I think that anyone
looking at this as an observer--but let's move on to the public
comments. How are you going to make sure that the public knows
that this process is fair, that it is transparent and is not
coming at a predisposed arrival at a determination already?
Secretary Buttigieg. Well, again, our role here is
procedural. It has to do with making sure that the process has
been met, not preempting a local decision about what the right
policy is. I know there are strong views on all sides that cut
across party lines and even across State and regional lines
when it comes to this project in particular, but we recognize
that the State and local role is distinct from the Federal
role. Ours is to make sure there is transparency and
thoroughness----
Ms. Malliotakis [interrupting]. OK. Lastly, the Federal
Highway Administration required MTA to answer 430 technical
questions after they submitted their draft of the EA. These
have not been made public or made available to Congress. Can
you share those questions and answers that you received with
the public?
Secretary Buttigieg. I will look into the right process for
getting those out.
Ms. Malliotakis. All right. Well, if we believe in
transparency, we want to make sure we get that information out
to the public domain. So, I would appreciate your assistance
with that. And my time has run out. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
I recognize Mr. Fitzpatrick. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary
Buttigieg, thanks for being here. Good to see you. I want to
start by thanking you for your collaboration on the bipartisan
infrastructure bill. It was a lot of work, a lot of
collaboration. You worked great with our office, and I wanted
to thank you for your role. I think it is going to really help
America.
Two questions. One, I don't think it is a fair question
because we just sent this letter last week, but I wanted to
bring it to your attention, to you and FRA Administrator Bose,
regarding the public nuisance and safety risk posed by blocked
railroad crossings. Certainly I have had to deal with it in my
district. I am sure I am not alone for sure. Lasting upwards of
an hour, these instances keep communities like mine and others
across the country cut off from commercial, Government and even
more significantly, emergency services, ambulances, firetrucks,
and what not.
So, I am going to submit this to the record. We have sent
it to you, but I know how agencies work, it might not have made
its way to you. Just to give a general update, on the blocked
crossing portal authorized by the IIJA section 22404 and to
address mechanisms or formulas that could measure the real
impact of obstructions of railroad crossings.
Madam Chair, do I have permission to submit this for the
record?
Ms. Norton. Accepted.
[The information follows:]

Letter of July 13, 2022, to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of
Transportation, and Hon. Amit Bose, Administrator of the Federal
Railroad Administration, from Hon. Brian K. Fitzpatrick, Member of
Congress, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Brian K. Fitzpatrick
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515,
July 13, 2022.
The Honorable Pete Buttigieg,
Secretary of Transportation,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
The Honorable Amit Bose,
Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
Dear Secretary Buttigieg and Administrator Bose,
I write today regarding the implementation of the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), and specifically, the Blocked Crossing
Portal authorized under Section 22404. When meeting with constituents,
my staff and I are consistently asked about the public nuisance and
safety risk posed by obstructed crossings.
Our district has two frequently blocked rail crossings, at Bellevue
Avenue in Langhorne, PA, and at Woodbourne Road in Middletown, PA.
Lasting for upwards of an hour, these instances keep our communities
cut off from commercial, public, and emergency services. Local reports
have indicated that miles-long trains, malfunctioning lights and
sensors, and lowered gates create disruptive and unnecessary vehicle
traffic. Worst of all, these blocked crossings severely impact the
ability of our communities' first responders to respond to emergencies
or immediately reach hospitals and healthcare facilities.
These colloquial accounts are compelling and given that the
railroads are overseen by the Department of Transportation and the
Federal Railroad Administration, this issue requires federal action.
Enacting the Infrastructure and Jobs Act and particularly requiring the
comprehensive collection of data through the Blocked Crossing Portal
are important first steps to solving this problem.
As you continue to implement this three-year public data gathering
program, I ask that you review and provide a written response to the
following questions.
1. Is the DOT or FRA encountering any difficulty or delay in
implementing the Blocked Crossing Portal? If so, what actions need to
be taken to expedite the effective administration of the program?
2. Can the DOT or FRA share any insights from, or even raw
preliminary data collected by, the Blocked Crossing Portal that may
help preemptively inform lawmakers?

It is squarely the responsibility of the federal government, and
especially the Department of Transportation and Federal Railroad
Administration, to address and remediate the detrimental impact of
blocked railroad crossings. I appreciate your timely review and
response to this letter.
Sincerely,
Brian K. Fitzpatrick,
Member of Congress.

Mr. Fitzpatrick. So, my question, Mr. Secretary, I want to
discuss secondary cockpit barriers. The 9/11 Commission did
tremendous work many years ago. Most, if not all, of those
recommendations were adopted by Congress and implemented as
part of our commitment to say never again to allow a terrorist
to infiltrate a cockpit and treat a commercial airliner like a
guided missile.
Even though this was included as a requirement for new
aircraft in the last FAA reauthorization nearly 4 years ago,
application of this mandate has been very slow and very
inconsistent. I can tell you, myself and my Problem Solvers
Caucus cochair have been working very hard, and we have had
frustrating results across multiple administrations to be
frank, and we are hoping that we can finally fix this.
Since coming to Congress, we have advocated for this, both
of us. On 9/11, my constituent, Captain Victor Saracini, he was
the pilot of flight 175 that our whole world watched in horror
crash into the second tower. And I was wondering, Mr.
Secretary, how familiar you are with this, how much you are
tracking it amongst a lot of the things you are dealing with,
if you would be willing to work with us as well to get this
done. This is a bipartisan issue. It is really incredible that
decades after 9/11, the most basic safety precaution is not
being implemented.
It has been blocked for all the wrong reasons by special
interests that don't want it for the wrong reasons. And all of
us have flown. We have watched the exchange when the cockpit
door opens for a pilot to go to the restroom, or what not, and
all that is placed there under current policy is a food cart
and an airline attendant. Twenty years after 9/11, it is really
unacceptable, and it is such an easy fix. It is something that
has already been approved and authorized on new aircraft. Will
you be willing to work with us on getting that done and also
getting retrofitted for current aircraft? And do you have any
other comments on the issue?
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. Yes, I am following this
policy. I know there is a great deal of impatience which I
share about making sure that this is delivered especially
knowing that it is called for in legislation. I have met with
advocates as well as experts on this, and it is being taken
very seriously. The FAA is working toward getting that
rulemaking advanced. I certainly welcome a chance to work with
you to make sure that some of the complexities are handled in
the right way and that there is transparency around the
timeline.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, sir. Just like all these tragic
incidents whether they be school shootings or acts of
terrorism, when we say never again it has got to be never
again. That 9/11 Commission did tremendous work, and this is
one of the few, possibly the only one, of the committee's
recommendations that has not been implemented. And I fear that
given how many years have passed since the last terror attack
due to the credit of a lot of our national security agencies
have avoided that, that we are still vulnerable because human
instinct is to drop your guard when you have kept your guard up
for so long.
And I am fearful that this is an instance where we are
exposed to a terror attack once again, and I hope that you are
willing to work with us, which you say you are, and I
appreciate that. But if you could just flag this for your
people, I would appreciate it.
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman yields back.
I recognize Mr. Stauber for 5 minutes. You are recognized,
Mr. Stauber.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, thanks for coming today. You are aware of
transportation issues. Do you know what the most inland port in
North America, correction, in the United States is?
Secretary Buttigieg. I am guessing it is in Minnesota.
Mr. Stauber. Do you know where?
Secretary Buttigieg. The most inland measured from the
coasts or from the Great Lakes?
Mr. Stauber. The most inland port is the Port of Duluth-
Superior.
Secretary Buttigieg. Duluth. Right.
Mr. Stauber. And I am very proud to represent that; a lot
of commodities and economic value come to and from. And I also
appreciate your support for the Soo locks. That money has got
to continue because that helps the Midwest.
I just want to talk to you a little bit about the chip
shortage. As you know, we want to reshore it, and I think that
when you reshore it you also have to reshore the minerals. You
are aware or maybe I am going to make you aware that the
biggest copper and nickel find in North America is in
northeastern Minnesota which we call the Iron Range. The Iron
Range has mined the iron ore that makes 80 percent of America's
steel. So, if we have Buy America provisions, we have to have
the Iron Range full steam ahead. Would you agree with that?
Secretary Buttigieg. I don't want to weigh in outside of my
lane in terms of production, but I certainly agree that we need
to make sure we are onshoring or nearshoring raw materials that
are going into----
Mr. Stauber [interrupting]. And we have to keep our iron
industry front and center. That's just strategic national
security. So, when we talk about the chips, do you know that a
Ford F-150 gasoline has 300 chips and the EV has 3,000? When
you take critical minerals offline, you allow foreign
adversarial countries to mine that. And I am just going to give
you an example. Cobalt. The vast majority of cobalt is mined in
the Congo using child slave labor. I think you would agree we
would rather mine those minerals in the United States under the
best environmental and best labor standards. Would that be
correct, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Buttigieg. Yes. If we have a choice on where to
source any of these, we would certainly prefer that it be in
the U.S.
Mr. Stauber. Yes. Your administration just took 234,000
acres of opportunity to mine critical minerals. And let me tell
you about the Duluth complex. It has 95 percent of our nickel
reserve, 88 percent of our cobalt, over one-third of our copper
and other platinum group metals, and your administration won't
even allow an EIS on a project-specific review.
You were just talking about an EIS, and you know, Mr.
Secretary, the EIS is the highest look from the Federal
Government. They wouldn't even allow a project-specific review
of an EIS on a mining project. So, when you want to transition
and when we transition to electric vehicles, why don't we have
an administration that supports mining in the United States?
And by the way, there is a project labor agreement in that, all
union labor from northern Minnesota, hundreds of jobs and
secondary jobs.
And so, I would submit to you that we need to mine in the
United States so we hold the destiny in the palm of our own
hands. And the administration doesn't seem to understand that,
and I would ask you this, and I think I know the answer: You do
not support slave labor; is that correct?
Secretary Buttigieg. Of course.
Mr. Stauber. OK. This administration doesn't understand. We
can remove ourselves from child slave labor by mining in the
United States and making sure allies get these critical
minerals from countries like the United States. Amnesty
International, nonpartisan, has said we have to stop allowing
slave labor, child slave labor. And I will submit to you we are
able, ready, and willing, Mr. Secretary, to mine these critical
minerals. We have to have an administration that has the
political will to do it, and it doesn't.
In October of 2020, then-candidate Joe Biden said to the
American people we are going to mine these minerals
domestically. That was a breath of fresh air for northern
Minnesota and the Iron Range. Now President Biden says we are
going to source those minerals from foreign nations. That, Mr.
Secretary, is unacceptable. That is what we talked about. We
can onshore and use American labor with the best environmental
standards and labor standards in the world.
And I would ask you to go back to your administration,
specifically the President of the United States, and allow us
to mine these minerals here in the United States. And I yield
back.
Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. The gentlemen yields back.
I recognize Mr. Van Drew. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Dr. Van Drew. [Audio drop.] Thanks again for being here.
Now you can hear me. See, if you didn't say anything, we would
have cut them a break. You could have missed the whole thing.
In my district of South Jersey, the infrastructure law is
aiding the United States Army Corps of Engineers with a major
dredging project in New Jersey's Intracoastal Waterway. The
project will clear out the clogged maritime channels of the
entire Jersey Shore and make my community safer and more
prosperous.
The law has also provided funding for airports and roads
and projects across my district. South Jersey has many
infrastructure needs, but I will continue to advocate for this
infrastructure law as it is implemented over the next 5 years.
I supported this Bipartisan Infrastructure Law because it
included conservative--conservative--regulatory policies
negotiated by Republicans including One Federal Decision.
One Federal Decision cuts through redtape by requiring
interagency cooperation, limited paperwork, and fixed
permitting deadlines. This policy saves years of time and
millions of dollars in the permitting of infrastructure
projects. With inflation ravaging, the country is in a critical
situation that we need to reduce redtape so that the funding
increases and the infrastructure law is not outpaced. That's
why Republican negotiators included these conservative
regulatory policies.
My concern is that this administration is far more focused
on spending money than on saving money, and that irresponsible
mentality could hinder the implementation of the infrastructure
law. One Federal Decision policy was put in place by President
Trump in 2017 through Executive order. President Biden repealed
it on his very first day in office. Thanks to the
infrastructure bill, One Federal Decision is now law, and it
must be implemented.
So, first question, Mr. Secretary, do you fully commit--
fully commit--that you are proactively working to implement One
Federal Decision in line with the letter of the law?
Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, we are. Thank you, first of all,
for your support for this legislation and want you to know that
we take very seriously the One Federal Decision provisions.
Some of those that we have been working on this regard include
establishing schedules that are consistent with the 2-year
average for most EISs, environmental impact statements, issuing
necessary authorizations, all necessary authorizations within
90 days of completing NEPA, setting up a performance
accountability system to track progress toward our goals, and
reporting to this committee regularly on the timelines of both
the EISs and then the environmental assessments and categorical
exclusions as well as working with other agencies on how to
make sure that those categorical exclusions are as efficiently
managed as possible.
So, we will continue our work on this and through the
permitting dashboard aim to be as transparent as possible about
how we are actually tracking toward those goals.
Dr. Van Drew. We would appreciate that, and it could make a
huge difference. Thank you. Second question I have, and
Congressman Stauber touched on it a little bit, concerned about
the batteries. I am concerned about the environmental aspects
of the batteries, and I am concerned about that so much of it
is controlled by China. So much is controlled in the Congo. It
is virtual slave labor.
We say as Americans that we are humane, and we are human,
and we care about life, yet we buy so many products from a
country that absolutely has no concern about that at all. I
don't understand how we do that. I don't understand how we buy
products made by the Uyghurs. I don't understand how we are
going to be buying products from the Congo, but the Chinese
controls the Congo. And what scares me about that, Mr.
Secretary, is they control too much already. They are getting
stronger, and I am sorry to say it, we are getting weaker.
And he may not have been one of your favorite Presidents,
but he was one of my favorite Presidents, Ronald Reagan. He
said there is no country that has ever been attacked because it
is too strong. We have to get stronger. We have to produce our
own goods and services. We have to produce our own cobalt if we
are going to do this. We have to produce our own elements and
minerals.
And finally, we have to make sure if we make standards for
ourselves internally that we keep those standards for everybody
else. You know what is happening now? And you do know this.
China is creating tons of fossil fuel. Russia is. India is.
Other countries are. They are not following the Paris Accords
in most of Europe. We are doing it and putting ourselves at a
deficiency and diminishing ourselves and making ourselves
weaker. That is unacceptable. That is not the America I know.
It is not the America I believe in, and we have to stop it, Mr.
Secretary.
Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman's time has expired.
That concludes our hearing. I would like to thank Secretary
Buttigieg for your testimony today. Your comments have been
very informative and helpful.
I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time that 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 additional comments and information submitted
by Members or the witness to be included in the record of the
day's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered. The committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:07 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

Submissions for the Record

----------

Prepared Statement of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, and Ranking Member Graves, for holding
today's hearing on implementation of the IIJA. I would also like to
thank the Secretary for testifying today.
The City of Dallas, DFW Airport, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, the
Dallas Inland Port, and Texas Trees Foundation have all applied for DOT
grants this year that are being funded by the IIJA. This is just in
North Central Texas, but we know DOT is getting thousands of requests
for every grant they announce.
With the $75 billion allocated this year to just highways, transit,
and airports, this legislation is creating over 975,000 good-paying
jobs and improving the transportation infrastructure in every state in
America.
It seems clear to me that the IIJA is already a success and has the
potential to make monumental improvements to our nation's
transportation system.
I would just encourage the Secretary and the leadership at DOT to
stay focused on ensuring that these funds are getting out to local
communities as quickly as possible and are being used on projects that
will have the biggest impact on improving the movement of both people
and goods.
I look forward to hearing from the Secretary how these IIJA funds
are successfully being distributed and utilized, and what we can expect
next from the Department of Transportation.

Letter of July 18, 2022, to Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, Chair, and Hon. Sam
Graves, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
from Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
July 18, 2022.
The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio, Chair,
The Honorable Sam Graves, Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
United States House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves:
Thank you for holding tomorrow's hearing, ``Implementing the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.'' We respectfully request this
letter be included in the hearing record.
The skyrocketing number of deaths and consistently high number of
injuries on our nation's roads over the last several years has renewed
national focus on the need for proven solutions to reduce these
preventable tragedies. Hearing witness U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) Secretary Pete Buttigieg has accurately stated,
``This is a crisis.'' \1\ The safety advances included in the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and continued action on
other Congressionally mandated safety countermeasures must be
implemented by the U.S. DOT in a comprehensive and expeditious
manner.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHTSA, USDOT Releases New Data Showing That Road Fatalities
Spiked in First Half of 2021 (Oct. 28, 2001).
\2\ Pub. L. 117-58 (2021); Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century (MAP-21) Act, Pub. L. 112-141 (2012); Fixing America's Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act, Pub. L. 114-94 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Vehicle Crashes are a Major Public Health Problem Which Demands
Immediate Action
As this Committee is well aware, our nation's roads have become
more dangerous and deadlier. According to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), 42,915 people were killed in motor
vehicle crashes in 2021.\3\ This represents a 10.5 percent increase
from 2020 and the highest number of deaths since 2005.\4\ In addition,
fatalities across a number of categories rose from 2020 to 2021
including speeding (five percent), alcohol-involved crashes (five
percent) and unrestrained occupants of passenger vehicles (3
percent).\5\ The NHTSA currently values each life lost in a crash at
$11.8 million.\6\ The crashes, injuries and fatalities impose a
financial burden of over $1 trillion in total costs to society--$313
billion of which are direct economic costs.\7\ This is equivalent to a
``crash tax'' of $944 on every person living in the U.S.\8\ In 2019,
crashes alone cost employers $72.2 billion.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities in 2021,
NHTSA, Apr. 2022, DOT HS 813 283.
\4\ Id.
\5\ Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities And
Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2021, NHTSA, May 2022, DOT HS 813
298.
\6\ John Putnam, DOT Deputy General Counsel, Guidance on the
Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) in U.S.
Department of Transportation Analyses--2021 Update.
\7\ Economic costs include lost productivity, medical costs, legal
and court costs, emergency service costs, insurance administration
costs, congestion costs, property damage, and workplace losses.
\8\ ``The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes,
2010,'' NHTSA (2015).
\9\ Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes to Employers 2019, Network of
Employers for Traffic Safety, March 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2021, over 5,600 people were killed in crashes involving a large
truck.\10\ Since 2009, the number of fatalities in large truck crashes
has increased by 66 percent.\11\ Additionally, nearly 147,000 people
were injured in crashes involving a large truck in 2020.\12\ The cost
to society from crashes involving large trucks and buses was estimated
to be $163 billion in 2019, the latest year for which data is
available.\13\ When adjusted solely for inflation, this figure amounts
to over $180 billion.\14\ According to the U.S. Department of Labor,
truck driving is one of the most dangerous occupations in the United
States.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Traffic Safety Facts: Crash Stats; Early Estimates of Motor
Vehicle Traffic Fatalities and Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2021,
NHTSA, May 2022, DOT HS 813 298.
\11\ Id. and Traffic Safety Facts 2019: A Compilations of Motor
Vehicle Crash Data, NHTSA, Aug. 2021, DOT HS 813 141. Note, the 66
percent figure represents the overall change in the number of
fatalities in large truck involved crashes from 2009 to 2021. However,
between 2015 and 2016 there was a change in data collection at U.S. DOT
that could affect this calculation. From 2009 to 2015 the number of
fatalities in truck involved crashes increased by 21 percent and
between 2016 to 2021, it increased by 20 percent.
\12\ Traffic Safety Facts, 2020 Data: Large Trucks, NHTSA, Apr.
2022, DOT HS 813 286.
\13\ 2021 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics, FMCSA,
Dec. 2021, RRA-21-004.
\14\ CPI Inflation Calculator, BLS, available at https://
www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.
\15\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, National
Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2020, USDL-21-2145 (Dec. 16,
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the IIJA is Implemented, It Should be a ``Floor'' and not a
``Ceiling'' for what Must be Achieved to Address the Motor Vehicle
Crash Death and Injury Toll
Every major surface transportation bill passed by Congress over the
last three decades has included significant traffic safety
improvements. These innovations have garnered bipartisan support and
saved thousands of lives. Advocates commends this Committee for
championing commonsense safety solutions, many of which were included,
in some fashion, in the IIJA enacted last November.\16\ These
provisions include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Pub. L. 117-58 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 11111: Authorizes safety upgrades to the Highway
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) that will help to protect vulnerable
road users (VRUs).
Section 11119: Directs U.S. DOT to establish a Safe
Routes to School Program.
Section 11135: Mandates that initial update of the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD)
includes protection of VRUs.
Section 11206: Requires states and local entities to
spend a minimum amount of funding for complete streets standards and
policies.
Section 11504: Requires U.S. DOT to conduct a study on
the existing and future impacts of autonomous vehicles (AVs) to
transportation infrastructure, mobility, the environment, and safety.
Section 23008: Mandates U.S. DOT further consider a rule
requiring state inspection of passenger carrying commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs).
Section 24102: Permits the use of federal funding for
automated enforcement in school and work zones.
Section 24107: Requires states to have minimum penalties
for repeat multi-substance offenders to avoid diversion of federal
highway construction funds.

Additionally, Section 23010 of the IIJA requires automatic
emergency braking (AEB) on large CMVs weighing over 26,000 pounds.
However, it fails to mandate these systems on Class 3-6 trucks which
are ubiquitous in many neighborhoods with the rise of delivery services
and e-commerce. In addition, the provision fails to direct that the AEB
system will detect and respond to VRUs such as pedestrians and
bicyclists. Advocates and others including the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) have been strongly urging the U.S. DOT to address
these issues as part of the rulemaking process, as it has the authority
to do so.
This Committee should also be lauded for directing U.S. DOT in
Section 23011 of the IIJA to finally complete a long overdue rulemaking
updating the performance standards for truck trailer underride guards.
This critical safety equipment can prevent a passenger vehicle from
traveling underneath a trailer during a crash. Unfortunately, the rule
released by NHTSA this month fails to meet the requirements included in
the IIJA despite the fact that nine of the largest trailer
manufacturers in the U.S. already meet the requirements in the
legislation.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ NHTSA Biden-Harris Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation Announce Comprehensive Actions to Increase Underride
Protection on Truck Trailers and Prevent Deadly Crashes (Jun. 30,
2022); Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Truck underride guard
ratings, available at: https://www.iihs.org/topics/large-trucks/truck-
underride
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, numerous provisions in the Investing in a New Vision
for the Environment and Surface Transportation (INVEST) in America
Act,\18\ passed by this Committee and the House of Representatives in
July 2021, that would have significantly improved public safety were
not included in the final IIJA. They include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ H.R. 3684, 117th Cong., 1st Sess. (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1602: Required U.S. DOT to revise the MUTCD to
mandate states use a Safe System Approach to setting speed limits,
consistent with NTSB recommendations.
Section 4202: Required U.S. DOT to revise the methodology
used to identify unsafe motor carriers under Compliance, Safety,
Accountability (CSA) program and make safety data publicly available
upon revision of the methodology.
Section 4203: Mandated that U.S. DOT establish terms and
conditions for carriers and drivers operating under an exemption from
safety rules.
Section 4306: Required U.S. DOT to conduct review of the
impacts of current hours-of-service (HOS) rules.
Section 4308: Established screening for Obstructive Sleep
Apnea (OSA) for CMV drivers.
Section 4311: Allowed data from Electronic Logging
Devices (ELDs) to be used by U.S. DOT for transportation research.
Section 4401: Required new school buses to be equipped
with AEB and electronic stability control (ESC) systems.

We urge the Committee to advance these issues at the earliest
opportunity.
Safety Setbacks in the IIJA Require Oversight and Mitigation of Damage
``Teen Truckers'' Pose a Major Safety Threat
Section 23022 of the IIJA established a three-year pilot program to
permit drivers ages 18-20 to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. Some
segments of the trucking industry have been pushing to allow teenagers
to operate CMVs in interstate commerce for at least 20 years, and
safety organizations, among others, have been opposing this proposal at
every step.
The trucking industry is facing a driver retention crisis, not a
driver shortage. In fact, a March 2019 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) analysis found that ``the labor market for truck drivers works
about as well as the labor markets for other blue-collar occupations''
and ``a deeper look [at the truck industry labor market] does not find
evidence of a secular shortage.'' \19\ As Secretary Buttigieg recently
noted, such a high rate of turnover is indicative that there are some
real issues with the quality of the job of driving a truck.\20\ In
addition, states issue more than 450,000 new commercial driver licenses
(CDLs) each year demonstrating that there are candidates to fill
vacancies.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Is the U.S. labor market for truck drivers broken? (Mar. 2019).
\20\ See: https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/transportation-
secretary-buttigieg-on-supply-chain-issues-worker-shortage-125851717987
(Nov. 10, 2021).
\21\ Greg Rosalsky, Is There Really A Truck Driver Shortage?,
National Public Radio (May 25, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Younger drivers are demonstrated to be less safe. Relatedly, as
Secretary Buttigieg noted in discussing raising the mandatory
retirement age for airline pilots, proposals regarding individuals in
safety sensitive positions that ``jeopardize safety'' should be
rejected.\22\ The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), citing
numerous studies, has stated that ``age is a strong risk factor for
truck crash involvement.'' \23\ In fact, age is the most important
factor in the high rate of involvement of younger CMV drivers in fatal
crashes. The general pattern of over-involvement in fatal crashes for
younger CMV drivers dominates all other factors. Studies of young CMV
drivers show that as the age of the driver decreases, large truck fatal
crash involvement rates increase.\24\ CMV drivers under the age of 19
are four times more likely to be involved in fatal crashes, as compared
to CMV drivers who are 21 years of age and older, and CMV drivers ages
19-20 are six times more likely to be involved in fatal crashes
(compared to CMV drivers 21 years and older).\25\ Because of the
significant public safety concerns associated with teen truck drivers,
we urge this Committee to exercise vigilant oversight of U.S. DOT's
implementation of the pilot program established in the IIJA. Moreover,
we continue to urge the Committee to reject efforts to advance the
misnamed ``DRIVE Safe'' Act (H.R. 1745/S. 659) which would establish a
similar pilot program permitting teen truckers to operate in interstate
commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Fox News, Pete Buttigieg: Answer to troubled skies is
cultivating `new generation of qualified pilots' (Jul. 10, 2022).
\23\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Comments to the
docket, FMCSA-2000-8410-0515; citing Christie, R. and Fabre, J. 1999.
Potential for fast-tracking heavy vehicle drivers. Melbourne,
Australia: National Road Transport Commission; Blower, D. 1996. The
accident experience of younger truck drivers. Ann Arbor, MI: University
of Michigan Transportation Research Institute; Frith, W.J. 1994. A
case-control study of heavy vehicle drivers' working time and safety.
Proceedings of the 17th Australian Road Research Board Conference, 17-
30. Queensland, Australia: Australian Road Research Board; Stein, H.S.
and Jones, I.S. (1988).
\24\ Campbell, K. L., Fatal Accident Involvement Rates By Driver
Age For Large Trucks, Accid. Anal. & Prev. Vol 23, No. 4, pp. 287-295
(1991).
\25\ Campbell, K. L., Fatal Accident Involvement Rates By Driver
Age For Large Trucks, Accid. Anal. & Prev. Vol 23, No. 4, pp. 287-295
(1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatigue is a Well-Known and Well-Documented Lethal Threat to the Safety
of CMV Drivers and the Public
Studies consistently show that long working hours per day and per
week are related to adverse health effects.\26\ The National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) has concluded that ``the
cumulative long-term effects of sleep loss and sleep disorders have
been associated with a wide range of deleterious health consequences
including an increased risk of hypertension, diabetes, obesity,
depression, heart attack, and stroke.'' \27\ Moreover, the American
Academy of Sleep Medicine warns that drowsy driving can have the same
consequences as driving while under the influence of drugs and
alcohol.\28\ Despite the NTSB repeatedly citing fatigue as a major
contributor to truck crashes, Section 23018 of IIJA included a
provision further weakening the HOS rules to the detriment of public
safety.\29\ We urge Congress to reject further attempts to degrade HOS
rules, including weakening or exempting the requirement for ELDs which
have been demonstrated to be effective at ensuring compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Karl SW, Robinson CF, Birdsey J, Chen GX, Hitchcock EM,
Lincoln JE, Nakata A, Sweeney MH. ``Obesity and Other Risk Factors: The
National Survey of U.S. Long-Haul Truck Driver Health and Injury.'' Am.
J. Ind. Med. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 57.6 (2014): 615-
26. Print; Orris, Peter. Literature Review on Health and Fatigue Issues
Associated with Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Hours of Work.
Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 2005. Print.
\27\ Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Fatigue, Long-Term Health, and
Highway Safety: Research Needs, National Academy of Sciences, Mar. 10,
2016.
\28\ Watson NF, Morgenthaler T, Chervin R, Carden K, Kirsch D,
Kristo D, Malhotra R, Martin J, Ramar K, Rosen I, Weaver T, Wise M.
Confronting drowsy driving: The American Academy of Sleep Medicine
Perspective. J Clin Sleep Med 2015; 11(11): 1335-1336; citing Dawson A,
Reid K. Fatigue, alcohol, and performance impairment. Nature 1997;
388:235. Accessed at http://www.aasmnet.org/resources/pdf/pressroom/
Drowsy-driving-position.pdf.
\29\ Section 23018; National Transportation Safety Board, 2019-20
Most Wanted list, available at: https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/
default.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA) has provided exemptions from certain
federal regulations including HOS rules for motor carriers and drivers.
Any exemption from federal regulations must be narrowly tailored in
time and scope with appropriate safeguards to protect truck drivers and
the public. Additionally, Congress must not enshrine temporary
exemptions into statute, and there must be transparency about their use
by making any related data available to the public.
Overweight Trucks Disproportionately Damage America's Crumbling
Infrastructure and Threaten Public Safety
According to the 2021 Infrastructure Report Card from the American
Society of Civil Engineers, America's roads receive a grade of ``D,''
and our bridges were given a ``C.'' \30\ Nearly 40 percent of our
615,000 bridges in the National Bridge Inventory are 50 years or older,
and one out of 11 is structurally deficient.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 2021 Infrastructure Report Card--Bridges, American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE); 2021 Infrastructure Report Card--Roads, ASCE.
\31\ 2021 Infrastructure Report Card--Bridges (ASCE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, Section 11515 in the IIJA included exemptions to
federal truck size and weight limits. Raising truck weight or size
limits could result in an increased prevalence and severity of crashes.
Unsurprisingly, trucks heavier than 80,000 pounds have a greater number
of brake violations, which are a major reason for out-of-service
violations.\32\ According to a North Carolina study by IIHS, trucks
with out-of-service violations are 362 percent more likely to be
involved in a crash.\33\ This is also troubling considering that
tractor-trailers moving at 60 miles per hour are required to stop in
310 feet--the length of a football field--once the brakes are
applied.\34\ Actual stopping distances are often much longer due to
driver response time before braking and the common problem that truck
brakes are often not in adequate working condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Roadside Inspections, Vehicle Violations: All Trucks Roadside
Inspections, Vehicle Violations (2019--Calendar), FMCSA.
\33\ Teoh E, Carter D, Smith S and McCartt A, Crash risk factors
for interstate large trucks in North Carolina, Journal of Safety
Research (2017).
\34\ Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 49 Part 571 Section
121: Standard No. 121 Air brake systems (FMVSS 121).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is overwhelming opposition to any increases to truck size and
weight limits. The public, local government officials, safety, consumer
and public health groups, law enforcement, first responders, truck
drivers and labor representatives, families of truck crash victims and
survivors, and Congress on a bipartisan level have all rejected
attempts to increase truck size and weight limits. Also, the technical
reports released in June 2015 from the U.S. DOT Comprehensive Truck
Size and Weight Study concluded there is a ``profound'' lack of data
from which to quantify the safety impact of larger or heavier trucks
and consequently recommended that no changes in the relevant truck size
and weight laws and regulations be considered until data limitations
are overcome.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, Federal
Highway Administration (June 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although IIJA invested billions of dollars to improve and make our
nation's roads and bridges safer, it also included exemptions to
federal truck size and weight laws.\36\ Any further weakening of these
critical safety regulations will undermine this objective, worsen
safety problems and divert rail traffic from privately owned freight
railroads, which are safer than public roadways, to our already
overburdened highways exacerbating road wear, congestion and safety
issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Section 11515.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experimental Autonomous Driving Technology Remains Unproven
Several serious crashes involving cars equipped with autonomous
driving technology, which is unregulated, have already occurred. Many
have been subject to investigation by the NTSB and NHTSA which have and
will continue to identify safety deficiencies, determine contributing
causes, and recommend government and industry actions to prevent future
deadly incidents.
In June 2021, NHTSA issued Standing General Order 2021-01 (SGO)
requiring manufacturers to report certain crashes involving vehicles
equipped with automated driving systems (ADS) or Level 2 advanced
driver assistance systems (ADAS). Last month, NHTSA released the first
set of data obtained through the SGO and the information is deeply
troubling.\37\ The data showed that of the 108 entities sent the SGO,
only 12 reported on ADAS, revealing nearly 400 crashes. Six crashes
were fatal, five resulted in serious injuries, and another 41 resulted
in minor or moderate injuries. Four involved a VRU such as a bicyclist
or a pedestrian. Twenty-five entities reported on ADS, revealing 130
crashes. Sixteen crashes reportedly resulted in injuries. Eleven
crashes involved a VRU including seven cyclists. Additionally, recent
testing mishaps with vehicles equipped with ADS include a fleet of test
taxis stopping in the middle of street and requiring human intervention
to move the ``cluster'' and a test vehicle operating without its
headlights while failing to follow police instructions.\38\ Our
nation's roads should not be an unregulated beta testing ground for
this experimental technology, threatening the safety of the traveling
public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ NHTSA, NHTSA Releases Initial Data on Safety Performance of
Advanced Vehicle Technologies (Jun. 15, 2022).
\38\ Aarian Marshall, Cruise's Robot Car Outages Are Jamming Up San
Francisco, Wired (Jul. 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January, Advocates released the results of a new public opinion
poll that showed 80 percent of respondents are concerned about sharing
the road with driverless cars as a motorist, bicyclist or a pedestrian.
Eighty-five (85) percent of respondents are similarly concerned about
sharing the road with driverless tractor-trailers and delivery trucks.
Of note, 60 percent of respondents feel that if the companies had to
meet minimum government safety requirements for their driverless cars
and trucks, it would address their concerns.
We once again commend this Committee and the Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit for holding the February hearing, ``The Road Ahead
for Automated Vehicles.'' Many promises have been touted about
autonomous vehicles (AVs) bringing reductions in motor vehicle crashes
and resultant deaths and injuries, lowering traffic congestion and
vehicle emissions, expanding mobility and accessibility, improving
efficiency, and creating more equitable transportation options and
opportunities. However, as Secretary Buttigieg has acknowledged, these
outcomes are far from certain.\39\ Similarly, an article published in
The Washington Post by David Zipper in February entitled, ``Companies
are racing to make self-driving cars. But why?'' examined this further
and called into question many of the oft-touted benefits AV proponents
have claimed.\40\ Zipper notes Secretary Buttigieg has said ``that
self-driving cars have `raised complicated, even philosophical,
questions about safety, equity and our workforce.' '' Zipper adds,
``With so much at stake in the future of self-driving cars, government
officials should be keeping a watchful eye on new developments, ready
to intervene to defend the public interest.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Nilay Patel and Andrew J. Hawkins, Pete Buttigieg is Racing to
Keep Up with Self Driving Cars. The Verge (Jan. 6, 2022).
\40\ David Zipper, Companies are racing to make self-driving cars.
But why? Washington Post (Feb. 4, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates has consistently sought action by the U.S. DOT to ensure
the safety of the public driving, riding, walking and rolling on our
roads and in contact with the still developing technology. In 2020,
Advocates spearheaded the compilation of the ``AV Tenets,'' policy
positions which should be a foundational part of any AV policy. This
comprehensive approach is based on expert analysis, real world
experience and public opinion. It is supported by 60 stakeholders
representing safety, consumer, public health, labor, bicyclists,
pedestrians, individuals with disabilities, smart growth, and
others.\41\ It has four main, commonsense categories including: 1)
prioritizing safety of all road users; 2) guaranteeing accessibility
and equity for all individuals including those with disabilities; 3)
preserving consumer and worker rights; and, 4) ensuring local control
and sustainable transportation. We urge Congress to use this document
as a foundation for any future AV legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ The AV Tenets and list of supporters is attached to this
letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
We laud the Committee for holding this hearing to make certain that
the U.S. DOT meets its mission to ensure the safest transportation
system in the world. Oversight of implementation of the IIJA is a
critical component to this end. We look forward to continuing to work
with you to improve safety on our nation's roadways.
Sincerely,
Catherine Chase,
President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.

cc: Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure

attachment 1
Autonomous Vehicle (AV) Tenets
AV Tenets is retained in committee files and is available online at
https://saferoads.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/AV-Tenets-11-24-20-
1.pdf

attachment 2
Supporters of Autonomous Vehicle (AV) Tenets
Supporters of AV Tenets is retained in committee files and is
available online at https://saferoads.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/
AV-Tenets-Support-List-5-21-21.pdf

Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
Introduction
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) appreciates the
opportunity to submit a statement to the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure for the hearing on Implementing the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
ASCE was a strong supporter of the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021. Successful implementation of this once-in-a-
generation investment has the potential to improve safety for Americans
and modernize the nation's roads, bridges, transit systems, pipes,
ports, broadband, airports, schools, and drinking water systems.
Recommendations for Effective Implementation of the IIJA
With the $1.2 trillion investment provided by the IIJA, the federal
government can restore its critical partnership with cities and states
to improve our nation's infrastructure. To optimize the investment of
over 100 new programs and many more existing programs across critical
infrastructure sectors, ASCE has developed key recommendations for
Congress, the Administration, and state and local governments to
consider as implementation of the IIJA gets underway.
1. Require the Use of the Most Up-to-Date Codes and Standards and
Regularly Fund Climate Data Updates
The most reliable way to ensure our nation's infrastructure is
resilient and that we are truly building back better, is the widespread
adoption and enforcement of modern, up-to-date building codes.
Therefore, ASCE strongly encourages federal agencies to incentivize the
use of up-to-date codes and standards, which can mitigate risks of
climate or manmade events such as hurricanes, fires, sea level rise,
and more.
Additionally, while ASCE urges new federal programs to incentivize
the use of up-to-date codes and standards, ASCE also supports the
development, adoption, and enforcement of a national model code as a
key method of minimizing climate impact and creating disaster
resilience in communities. Programs like the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA) Building Resilient Infrastructure and
Communities (BRIC) grant program are already requiring the use of up-
to-date codes and standards and can serve as a model for other programs
across the federal government. For example, the Department of Energy
should require that any new projects dedicated to modernizing and
hardening the electric grid follow ASCE 74, Guidelines for Electrical
Transmission Line Structural Loading.
The following ASCE documents and standards should also be utilized
for new projects that are receiving IIJA funds. These same documents
serve as a basis upon which such a model code can be developed:
ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for
Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-22), currently an integral
part of U.S. building codes, describes the means for determining soil,
flood, tsunami, snow, rain, atmospheric ice, earthquake, and wind
loads, and their combinations for resilient structural design;
ASCE 24, Flood Resistant Design and Construction,
prescribes a standard for cost effectively increasing resiliency by
reducing and eliminating risks to property from flood hazards and their
effects;
ASCE 41, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing
Buildings, standardizes methods for the retrofit of existing buildings
to increase resiliency in communities after a seismic event;
ASCE Manual of Practice 140, Climate-Resilient
Infrastructure: Adaptive Design and Risk Management, provides guidance
for and contributes to infrastructure analysis/design in a world in
which risk profiles are changing due to climate change per the Fourth
National Climate Assessment.
ASCE Manual of Practice 74, Guidelines for Electrical
Transmission Line Structural Loading, provides guidelines for the
interpretation of ASCE 7 specifically for overhead power lines and
includes updated wind and ice loadings that all overhead transmission
and distribution lines should be designed for with the consideration of
current climate change data.
ASCE Manual of Practice 141, Wood Pole Structures for
Electrical Transmission Lines: Recommended Practice for Design and Use,
provides guidelines for the proper design and analysis of wood pole
structures used in our distribution and transmission grid
infrastructure.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

In the wake of Hurricane Harvey, the City of Houston voted to
require all new construction in the city's floodplains be built two
feet above the 500-year floodplain. Florida, meanwhile, has made a
series of updates to their building codes over the past twenty years,
including the mandated use of stronger nails, relocation of vents, and
more thorough inspection processes. These are strong examples of how
codes can be modernized and ASCE standards can be incorporated to
strengthen a city or state's resilience.
Therefore, while many state and local government agencies are
leading the way, to fully realize the benefits of the IIJA, ASCE
encourages federal agencies and Congress to support and incentivize the
widespread adoption and enforcement of up-to-date building and
infrastructure codes. The recent creation of the National Initiative to
Advance Building Codes, which will focus on helping state and local
governments adopt the most up-to-date building codes and standards,
indicates that federal officials understand the importance of these
codes and standards for resilience. ASCE stands ready to support the
work of the initiative. Additionally, we urge Congress to provide
robust funding to federal agencies like the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), FEMA, and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), whose missions include both developing
the data necessary for ensuring standards can address the impacts of
climate change and preparing and implementing a national model code
that considers increasingly strong storms.
Currently, the only data set that receives reliable federal funding
to update is seismic data through the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP) authorization. FEMA and NOAA do not receive
regular funding to update flood and rain data, so even with storms
becoming stronger, in many cases the latest available rainfall data is
decades old. This means, for example, that our nation's dams and levees
are often being designed based on rainfall data from the 1970s, while
buildings are being designed without the latest seismic and wind data
that is necessary to build resiliently. While some states have taken it
upon themselves to update data sets, such as rainfall data, this has
led to a piecemeal approach and fails to recognize that floodplains and
other hazards do not end at state lines, putting at risk communities
across the country. We cannot build resiliently relying on backward-
looking data and, therefore, strongly urge Congress to fund these
critical programs.
2. Dedicate Resources to Grow the Pipeline of Skilled Workers
To realize the potential of this five-year legislation, it is
critical that we have the civil engineering workforce in place to
design, build, and maintain the nation's infrastructure. The American
Council of Engineering Companies found that the industry will need to
add 82,000 full- and part-time engineers to implement the IIJA.
Infrastructure owners, including state and local departments of
transportation and water utilities, as well as consulting engineers,
cannot effectively utilize the influx of funding if they do not have
the workforce in place.
Congress continues to recognize workforce needs with recent
provisions dedicated to advancing science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education in the House and Senate America Creating
Opportunities for Manufacturing, Pre-Eminence in Technology, and
Economic Strength (COMPETES) bills. However, Congress and the
Administration must continue to encourage state and local governments
to include skilled workers in their long-term workforce development
plans. The Department of Labor and the National Science Foundation
should partner with the engineering community to develop programs that
can assist state STEM education and workforce plans to solve this
ongoing challenge in the industry.
Some limited funds in the bill support workforce development
activities and address gaps, but we must continue to grow a diverse
pipeline of skilled workers. Specifically, we must bring students into
the industry and keep engineers in the United States. Even more
importantly, funds can and should be directed to include targeted
outreach to disadvantaged and minority communities in order to address
the ongoing gender, racial, and ethnic diversity gap that persists in
the engineering field.
3. Cut Red Tape and Increase Transparency Across Government Agencies
ASCE has identified areas where the federal government should work
with industry stakeholders to ensure projects are not delayed due to
overly burdensome and often redundant red tape. First, while ASCE
supports the intention of the Buy America language in the IIJA, we need
to ensure that language does not hamper innovation, cause unnecessary
project delays and cost increases, or further constrain markets. While
guidance from the Administration related to Buy America is helpful,
there is still concern that the waiver process will be overly
burdensome and significantly slow down projects that require a waiver
to be filed.
Second, ASCE is encouraged by the IIJA codifying One Federal
Decision, which will lead to cost reductions, and applauds the
Administration for developing a Permitting Action Plan to further
accelerate the federal permitting and environmental review process. One
of the key recommendations in the 2021 Report Card for America's
Infrastructure was to streamline the project permitting process across
infrastructure sectors, while ensuring appropriate safeguards and
protections are in place. Therefore, ASCE believes that the most recent
plan is a step in the right direction to ensure that projects can be
delivered on time, and on budget, while maintaining the rigorous
environmental review process.
Finally, the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that
IIJA funds are properly managed. The historic scope of the IIJA and the
large number of partners needed to deliver the legislation, such as
state and local governments, contractors, consultants, non-profits, and
even the public, means the federal government will face a complex
challenge to reduce the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse. Therefore,
transparency will be key, especially in areas like the grant selection
process. To minimize risk and increase transparency ASCE recommends
five actions:
Develop and implement a comprehensive IIJA Financial Risk
Plan;
Ensure the U.S. Strategy on Countering Corruption is
effectively implemented and resourced;
Clearly define risk responsibilities of all partners
responsible for delivering the IIJA
Establish financial performance measures and monitor
those measures throughout implementation;
Utilize proven, effective tools such as ISO 37001 Anti-
Bribery Management Systems.
4. Fund Research and Development to Accelerate Innovation
Comprehensive legislation focused on the nation's commitment to
research and development (R&D) is a critical complement to the IIJA.
Coupling the IIJA with R&D legislation like the America COMPETES Act
will support the development of new and innovative materials and
processes, cut project costs, and facilitate a durable, secure,
sustainable, and resilient infrastructure network. ASCE urges Congress
to further fund critical R&D programs at NIST, the National Science
Foundation (NSF), the Department of Transportation, and the Department
of Energy and urges those agencies to prioritize R&D investments that
will make our infrastructure more resilient and equitable for
communities in the future.
5. Collaborate with the Engineering Community to Develop Technical
Assistance for Disadvantaged and Rural Communities
The IIJA took great strides to acknowledge the inequities that were
created or exacerbated by our nation's built environment. Programs like
the new Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program at the Department of
Transportation, investments in Superfund and brownfields remediation,
and set-aside funds for rural and disadvantaged communities throughout
many of the water and broadband infrastructure programs will be
critical to both begin to address past inequities and ensure that new
investments are not perpetuating existing problems. Combined with the
Administration's commitment to Justice40, which seeks to deliver 40% of
overall benefits from relevant investments to disadvantaged
communities, new funding has an opportunity to bring about change in
many of these communities.
To meet this mission, the federal government will need to partner
with state and local governments and the engineering community to not
just identify these disadvantaged communities but ensure that they have
the tools necessary to compete for new funding.
Additionally, ASCE and the engineering community stand ready to
work with federal agencies to help expand upon the technical assistance
programs that many rural and disadvantaged communities will rely upon
to receive competitive grants. Agencies should coordinate with the
nation's engineers to help identify those communities that need
assistance and determine what type of assistance is needed, whether it
is grant preparation, identifying suitable projects that will bring
community benefits, or long-term capacity building within agencies or
jurisdictions.
6. Incentivize Asset Management and Life Cycle Cost Analysis
As new competitive grant programs are developed across federal
agencies, these programs should provide incentives for asset management
and life cycle cost analysis as a routine part of the planning process.
There are a growing number of state and local governments and private
sector infrastructure owners demonstrating the long-term advantages of
employing comprehensive asset management practices. However, asset
management plans are not required or incentivized by the federal
government in many sectors, including wastewater. By encouraging the
development and regular update of asset management plans and life cycle
cost analysis as a condition to receive new federal funding, we can
ensure programming and planning for operations and maintenance are part
of every new infrastructure project. Furthermore, by providing
prioritization for those agencies already using asset management
practices, the federal government can ensure additional state and local
agencies develop asset management plans and implement life cycle cost
analysis.
ASCE has identified several programs in the IIJA that are taking a
step in the right direction by expanding the requirement for asset
management plans as a condition to receive federal funding. One such
example is the Federal-State Partnership for State of Good Repair Grant
Program, which requires any public transit entity that owns
infrastructure used for intercity passenger rail on the Northeast
Corridor to develop an asset management system that can inform Amtrak's
capital improvement program. Additionally, there is some funding
available for small public water systems looking to create asset
management plans. However, there are many additional programs that do
not include that requirement and should. ASCE recommends federal
agencies assess each new and existing IIJA program to determine whether
requiring an asset management plan is feasible and would provide value
for stakeholders. Additionally, ASCE encourages infrastructure owners
that already have asset management plans to regularly update them so
that these tools remain useful for decision-making.
There are examples of state and local agencies and programs already
making good use of asset management best practices. Those programs that
are most successful provide clear guidelines and requirements and
include a rigorous quality review, such as Michigan's Stormwater, Asset
Management, and Wastewater Program. Since 2013, the Michigan program
has helped municipalities develop, update, and improve asset management
plans for their wastewater and stormwater systems, which has led to
better services, more accurate project prioritization, and a more
informed understanding of the current and future needs.
7. Prioritize Projects Dedicated to Maintaining and Improving Existing
Assets
ASCE urges federal, state, and local governments to prioritize
projects that will maintain, upgrade, and improve our existing assets.
ASCE's 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure found that the
nation's overall infrastructure grade is a ``C-'' and that it will cost
an additional $2.5 trillion over the next decade to bring all of our
infrastructure into a state of good repair. The IIJA represents a down
payment that can help bridge the growing infrastructure investment gap,
but funds must be spent wisely.
Fortunately, many programs in the IIJA are already dedicated to
improving existing assets, such as the Bridge Replacement,
Rehabilitation, Preservation, Protection, and Construction Program,
which will provide nearly $27 billion to states to fix approximately
15,000 bridges most in need of repair across the country. This program
will be critical to ensuring that the overall number of poor bridges in
this country does not continue to rise as those bridges age in place.
Additionally, the IIJA includes $15 billion to replace lead service
line connections to customers, a critical investment to ensuring that
our existing water systems are protecting public safety.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deferred maintenance has been an issue across the infrastructure sectors
for decades. The 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure found
that:
There is a broken water main every two minutes, and an
estimated 6 billion gallons of treated water lost each day in the U.S.
That's enough to fill over 9,000 swimming pools.
Growing deferred maintenance on our nation's roads has left 43%
of our public roadways in poor or mediocre condition.
In 2020, 7.5% of our nation's bridges were considered
structurally deficient, meaning they were in ``poor'' condition.

The opportunity afforded by the IIJA will allow agencies to address
pressing maintenance needs in the near future, thereby staving off
worsening conditions and keeping communities safe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASCE recommends that additional programs created under the IIJA
also allocate funding with a lens that examines how we can improve our
existing assets, while understanding that some programs, such as those
dedicated to grid modernization and port development, will need to
build additional capacity. Some of these programs that should fix and
modernize existing infrastructure include the Rebuilding American
Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) grant program,
the Bridge Replacement, Rehabilitation, Preservation, Protection, and
Construction Program, and the Federal-State Partnership for State of
Good Repair Grant Program.
8. Streamline the Engineering Contracting Process
In recent years, many projects around the country have been slowed
down due to increased change orders during the contracting process. The
Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee (EJCDC), a joint venture
of ASCE, the National Society of Professional Engineers, and the
American Council of Engineering Companies, publishes documents related
to engineering, construction, design/build, construction manager as
advisor, construction manager at risk, and procurement. The use of the
EJCDC documents reduces potential errors, redundancies, or conflicts in
construction contracts. EJCDC updates its documents approximately every
five years to reflect industry trends, court decisions, and changes in
applicable laws and regulations. The EJCDC has developed contracts for
scoping, preliminary design, final design, construction, and
commissioning. Therefore, the EJCDC has contracts that are ready to
expeditiously move projects through the process when utilized
appropriately.
ASCE emphasizes that EJCDC construction contract forms that will
effectively deliver projects under a variety of project delivery
methods funded under the IIJA are available. Even more importantly,
ASCE urges federal and state agencies to accept the current versions of
the documents without exception. Additionally, it is necessary to
ensure that smaller, rural, or disadvantaged communities are aware of
these contract forms and have access to them.
Therefore, ASCE recommends that all federal agencies follow the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS)
model, which has preapproved certain standard EJCDC engineering and
construction series documents for use in projects funded under the RUS
Water and Waste Disposal program. By preapproving EJCDC documents, the
USDA has eliminated the need for applicants to purchase the separate
Funding Agency edition of the documents and therefore has streamlined
the process and made these documents more accessible for rural or
disadvantaged communities. Local agencies are also relieved of the
burden of drafting and editing documents for later approval by federal
and state agencies.
Furthermore, ASCE supports qualifications-based selection
procedures outlined by the Brooks Architect-Engineers Act, the numerous
similar state and local laws, and the American Bar Association's Model
Procurement Code for State and Local Governments for engagement of
engineering services. As the IIJA is implemented, ASCE strongly
recommends that the application of the Brooks Act is upheld.
Conclusion
In closing, ASCE remains dedicated to ensuring the IIJA is
implemented efficiently and effectively. The nation is on the precipice
of a long-awaited infrastructure decade; however, if we fail to make
smart investments, create unnecessary project delays, build to outdated
standards, or fail to fill the nation's workforce gaps, we will not
realize the full impact of the historic investments made by the
bipartisan infrastructure law.
ASCE thanks the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure for holding this hearing. The nation's engineers stand
ready to maintain, modernize, and build the infrastructure required for
the next generation and are prepared to work with federal, state, and
local officials to make sure these investments are spent wisely.

Appendix

----------

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

Question 1. Mr. Secretary, the IIJA authorized programs like ARPA-I
and SMART grants to ensure continued focus on technological innovation
in our transportation sector. How does DOT intend to leverage these and
other programs to advance transportation sector innovations and scale
already-validated technologies to promote further economic growth,
innovation, and competition?
Answer. The Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing
Transportation (SMART) grant program is among many programs at the
Department of Transportation (DOT) that will be used to demonstrate and
scale technologies to address core transportation priorities. This
program is structured to accelerate the impacts that emerging and
proven technologies can have when integrated into transportation
systems. In mid-September, DOT announced a NOFO for $100 million under
the SMART grant program to support an initial set of projects.
The Advanced Research Projects Agency-Infrastructure (ARPA-I) is
authorized to be an advanced Research and Development (R&D) agency that
will catalyze the development of innovative new technologies, systems,
and capabilities designed to transform our nation's physical
infrastructure (including resilience to cyber threats) and to ensure
American technological leadership. ARPA-I aims to build the future of
transportation that is safe, secure, efficient, resilient, while
reducing the lifecycle impacts of and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
from transportation infrastructure and increasing equity and access for
all. If appropriated, ARPA-I will focus primarily on the development of
new and emerging technologies capable of commercialization and
deployment at scale to solve persistent problems in transportation
infrastructure. ARPA-I will foster highly innovative infrastructure R&D
processes and contribute to transforming DOT's future in driving and
supporting key innovations in transportation to maintain U.S.
leadership.

Question 2. Mr. Secretary, what role has the private sector played,
and can continue to play, in the buildout of EV charging stations? Have
you found interest among private businesses in hosting EV charging
stations, are there impediments to their participation, and how can the
Department help mitigate those obstacles as it begins distributing
money under the NEVI grant program?
Answer. The private sector has a vital role in the development of
EV charging infrastructure, and we now have a once-in-a-generation
opportunity to join them in establishing a convenient, reliable,
affordable, and equitable national EV charging network. DOT encourages
states to develop programs with cost-share requirements or rebates to
leverage private investment in EV charging and maximize the impact of
National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program
funding. States were encouraged to involve relevant private sector and
industry representatives throughout the development and deployment of
their NEVI State EV Infrastructure Deployment Plans to allow for the
identification of EV charging market opportunities and challenges,
along with potential solutions to address them. As is discussed in the
NEVI Formula program guidance, funds made available under the program
may be used to contract with a private entity for acquisition,
installation, and operation and maintenance of publicly accessible EV
charging infrastructure (FHWA anticipates that this will be done in
most cases), and the private entity may pay the non-federal share of
the cost of a project.

Question 3. Mr. Secretary, one of the hallmarks of IIJA was making
more transportation funding available directly to local governments and
other entities beyond State DOTs.
Question 3.a. Can you comment on actions DOT has taken to support
local governments as they attempt to navigate and succeed in accessing
available funding?
Answer. The Department has both new and existing technical
assistance programs that provide hands-on support for project sponsors
as they seek to apply for federal funding. These include the new
Thriving Communities Initiative, as well as the Reconnecting
Communities Pilot Program (RCP), and the Rural Opportunities to Use
Transportation for Economic Success (ROUTES) Initiative.
DOT's Thriving Communities Initiative launched this year and will
help provide easier access to resources and best practices and help
clarify federal grant requirements and processes. The RCP includes $30
million for technical assistance, and through the Thriving Communities
Initiative, DOT will use the funds to support communities interested in
applying to the program in future years. The Department is committed to
ensuring that all communities who may have an interest in applying for
these programs have as much information as possible to help them
prepare applications. We have been holding numerous program webinars;
developing resources, FAQs, and fact sheets; training DOT division and
regional staff; and expanding our outreach to as many potential
applicants as possible. For instance, the RCP has held 11 webinars
including focused sessions for Tribal communities, for the National
Governors Association, for construction grants applicants, and for
community health partners with over 11,000 attendees in total.
DOT is also making special efforts to reach rural and Tribal
communities for whom resource and capacity constraints make it
difficult to apply for discretionary grant programs. Closely
coordinating with the Thriving Communities Initiative, the ROUTES
initiative seeks to address disparities in rural and Tribal
transportation infrastructure by developing user-friendly tools and
information, aggregating DOT resources, and providing technical
assistance to better connect rural project sponsors with the funding,
financing, and outreach resources available. The ROUTES website
provides a one-stop shop for information for rural applicants, and
ROUTES will be releasing an update of its comprehensive Grant Applicant
Toolkit in early 2023 to provide information on the new Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law programs as well as DOT's continuing discretionary
grant programs.
The Department also created the DOT Navigator, a new resource to
help communities apply for grants, and to plan for and deliver
transformative infrastructure projects and services. The DOT Navigator
provides general information to help communities develop grant
applications and understand frequently required documents. It provides
a menu of technical assistance resources, including contacts for DOT
regional and field offices, available to help new and repeat grantees.
Lastly, in August 2022, DOT awarded more than $2.2 billion from the
Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity
(RAISE) program to help urban and rural communities move forward on
projects that modernize roads, bridges, transit, rail, ports, and
intermodal transportation and make our transportation systems safer,
more accessible, more affordable, and more sustainable.

Question 3.b. As you engage local governments, tracking best
practices in outreach and technical assistance would be very
instructive to Congress to inform the next surface transportation bill.
Is that something you'd be willing to share with this Committee after
you've gone through a few rounds of funding?
Answer. Yes. DOT is developing several metrics and methods to track
the effectiveness and breadth of our outreach efforts. For example, we
are mapping participation in our webinars by zip code. We are also
including evaluation methods into the design of new programs like
Thriving Communities and Reconnecting Communities. To help inform the
Thriving Communities program, DOT published a Request for Information
in the Federal Register that was open August 5th to August 26th. The
comments we received are being used to help shape our programs and
future technical assistance efforts.

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

Question 1. Part of the PIPES Act of 2020 (PIPES Act) included
authorization for additional personnel with expertise in pipeline
safety, facilities, and systems, as the agency has struggled with
staffing.\1\ However, we were concerned to see the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) indicate it will be
hiring attorneys, environmental economists, and climate change and
mitigation staff, rather than those with pipeline expertise, as
directed by Congress.\2\ What is the status of hiring the personnel
authorized by the PIPES Act? How many personnel have been hired or are
in the process of being hired? Can you please detail the number of new
attorneys hired, the number of environmental economists hired, the
number of climate change and mitigation staff hired, and the number of
staff with expertise in pipeline safety, facilities, and systems hired?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ P.L. 116-260 (2020), Section 102.
\2\ Twitter, PHMSA_DOT, Mar. 26, 2021, https://twitter.com/
PHMSA_DOT/status/1375479993304760320; See also: DOT, Budget Estimates
Fiscal Year 2023 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, (2023), https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/
files/2022-03/PHMSA_Budget_Estimates_FY23.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. PHMSA successfully onboarded four full-time employees (two
general engineers; an attorney advisor; and a technical writer) and an
additional position (economist) is in the pre-onboarding background
investigation process. All of these positions have been filled with
candidates with pipeline safety or specific discipline expertise to
support rulemaking efforts and fulfill congressional mandates. Another
position was previously filled but the incumbent resigned for a
position outside the federal government. Three positions (two general
engineers/physical scientists and an operations research analyst) are
in re-recruitment development status as the previously selected
candidates declined offers. PHMSA is actively recruiting for the
remaining positions, despite an increasingly competitive hiring
environment. To this end, PHMSA continues to apply all hiring
flexibilities and incentives to the recruitment and hiring process. To
ensure continuity of the mission of PHMSA, the agency has re-allocated
existing personnel resources where appropriate and practicable.
Rulemaking entails a multidisciplinary approach and requires a hiring
strategy to recruit employees with expertise in a variety of
disciplines, including law and economics, to ensure the promulgation of
comprehensive, clear, and concise rules that meet a myriad of statutory
mandates such as cost-benefit analysis.

Question 2. As you know, the PIPES Act of 2020 requires PHMSA to
hold a GPAC meeting on the class location rule no later than December
27, 2021.\3\ Recognizing that we are now in July 2022, can you please
inform the committee about why PHMSA has not held a meeting yet and
when they plan on doing so?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ P.L. 116-260 (2020), Section 115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. The PIPES Act of 2020 included an aggressive timeline for
the agency to advance rulemakings (as well as other congressional
directives), and PHMSA has completed several of these rulemakings with
important safety impacts related to remote-control valves, gas
gathering pipelines, and increased protections for unusually sensitive
areas. At the same time, as mandated by the PIPES Act of 2020, PHMSA
has initiated new rulemakings related to leak detection and gas
distribution pipelines and continues work on the rest of the regulatory
agenda, including changes to class location requirements.
PHMSA is in the process of a third-party assessment of our special
permit process, which is often used by operators to address class
location changes within their system. In order to optimize utilization
of our advisory committee--to make efficient use of the agency's staff
time as well as the advisory committee members' time, we believe it is
best to have the assessment of these safety conditions complete and
available for discussion. To this end, we anticipate holding a GPAC
meeting on the class location rulemaking after the conclusion of our
special permit process review, which includes a review of the safety
conditions that are used in the special permit process and their
effectiveness in providing safety. The results of this assessment will
be used for determining the effectiveness of the special permit process
and the usage of similar safety requirements for class location change
rulemaking.

Question 3. Technology is offering great benefits to the
transportation sector, including the transportation safety. Pipeline
operators are harnessing ultrasound and MRI technology used in doctor's
offices to better inspect their pipelines. Artificial intelligence and
machine learning are helping sift through safety data and improve risk
modeling. Do you support the greater application of advanced
technologies and methodologies to pipeline safety?
Answer. Yes, in fact, PHMSA's Research and Development (R&D)
program supports and encourages the development of new technologies and
methodologies to further improve pipeline safety. PHMSA's R&D program
continues to sponsor research on projects that can provide near-term
solutions to improve safety, reduce environmental impacts, and enhance
the reliability of the nation's pipeline transportation system. PHMSA's
R&D program also supports and encourages testing and evaluation of
these new technologies and methodologies to ensure that they are safe
and effective.
Since 2002, PHMSA has invested nearly $168 million dollars in 380
R&D projects, some of which have been commercialized, such as new
technologies for methane leak detection. Since the program's inception,
34 patent applications and 35 new pipeline technologies have hit the
market, including above-ground, radar-based pipeline mapping and a
robotic nondestructive testing method for pipelines that cannot
accommodate traditional in-line inspection tools. A full list of
previously funded pipeline safety research projects that have resulted
in commercialized technologies can be found on PHMSA's R&D website.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Technology Research & Development: Success Stories. PHMSA
(dot.gov)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA's R&D program also takes a far-reaching view with its
Competitive Academic Agreement Program (CAAP), which funds academic
research to provide tomorrow's pipeline safety workforce with an early
opportunity to contribute safety solutions. The CAAP program, launched
in 2013, has worked greatly to expose the next generation of engineers
to the pipeline industry while providing them the opportunity to
develop and deliver cutting-edge research and technology solutions to
solve today's pipeline safety challenges.

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

Question 1. Secretary Buttigieg, because of a horrific underrides
crash in my district that took the life of Michael Higginbotham, I have
been working with Senator Gillibrand and Representative Mark DeSaulnier
to strengthen safety measures to prevent such accidents in the future.
I was proud that we got several provisions of our Stop Underrides Act
signed into law in the IIJA, and I commend your Administration for
recently announcing comprehensive actions to increase underride
protection on truck trailers and prevent deadly crashes. These actions,
such as establishing the Federal advisory committee on underride
protection and publishing proposed rulemaking to consider requirements
for side underride guards, will help to improve protection for both
drivers and passengers.
As part of this announcement, NHTSA also proposed a final rule
upgrading the strength of rear underride guards. Despite clear
direction issued by Congress in the bill, the rule drops the
requirement for the guard to prevent underride in ``30%'' overlap
situations. I've been hearing from safety advocates that this proposed
rule does not go far enough to improve safety and is inconsistent with
the aspirations of the National Roadway Safety Strategy.
I am concerned it will substantially harm safety by setting a
standard that reduces the existing market for stronger rear underride
guards as proposed in the IIJA, despite NHTSA estimating the cost for
these guards can be as low as $100.
Mr. Secretary, do you share this concern and would you be
supportive of any efforts to reconsider this final rule?
Answer. Safety is the Department of Transportation's (DOT) top
priority, and the Department remains steadfast in implementing the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) mandates. BIL mandated requiring
rear impact guards that prevent passenger compartment intrusion (PCI)
in a 30 percent overlap crash condition, if such a requirement meets
the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
(Safety Act).
The Safety Act authorizes prescribing standards that are
reasonable, practicable, meet motor vehicle safety needs, and takes
into consideration whether the standard is reasonable, practicable, and
appropriate for all vehicle and equipment types; and the extent to
which the standard will reduce deaths and injuries associated with
traffic crashes.
NHTSA issued the final rule on July 15, 2022, upgrading rear impact
protection in crashes of passenger vehicles into the rear of trailers,
in accordance with BIL, the Safety Act, and the best available science.
The final rule requires rear impact guards on trailers and semitrailers
with sufficient strength and energy absorption to protect occupants of
passenger vehicles in 35 mph crashes in both full overlap and 50
percent overlap conditions. NHTSA carefully considered requiring rear
impact guards to prevent PCI in 30 percent overlap crashes and
concluded that such a requirement would not meet the requirements of
the Safety Act.
In accordance with the research mandate in BIL, NHTSA is conducting
additional research on the design and development of rear impact guards
that can protect passenger vehicle occupants in crashes into the rear
of trailers at crash speeds up to 65 mph. As part of this research,
NHTSA will also evaluate potential rear impact guard designs that could
improve protection in the less-frequent 30 percent low overlap crashes
while enhancing protection in full and 50 percent overlap crashes at
higher speeds. NHTSA will evaluate the results of this research and
consider the recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Underride
Protection to identify potential next steps.

Questions from Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford to Hon. Pete Buttigieg,
Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

Question 1. Secretary Buttigieg, considering the rural nature of
the North Country and New York's 21st Congressional District, the need
for reliable methods of transportation is critical.
Recently Congresswoman Elise Stefanik sent a letter to Amtrak's CEO
urging them to immediately resume operations on the Adirondack line
between Albany and Montreal, which runs through her Congressional
District. The Adirondack line has yet to resume service after ceasing
operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The rail line is operating
solely between New York City and Albany before turning around and
leaving Upstate New York and the North Country without critical
transportation.
Despite the delays on the Adirondack line, Amtrak's Maple Leaf line
resumed operations from New York City to Toronto and Ontario on June
27, 2022. The continued delays in service without explanations are
concerning, especially considering Amtrak wants to expand its
operations instead of fixing its existing lines.
Question 1.a. Why have agreements with our Canadian partners been
regarding resumption of Amtrak's Maple Leaf line and not the Adirondack
line?
Answer. DOT strongly supports resuming transportation services that
were halted due to the pandemic, including intercity passenger rail.
Our Department is not a party to specific agreements between Amtrak and
their host railroads, but always encourages parties to work toward
resumption of services and the long-term expansion of passenger rail
service across the U.S. through the historic investment opportunities
in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

Question 1.b. Is the Adirondack line fully staffed? Are the crews
qualified and requalified to operate the rail lines?
Answer. Our Federal Railroad Administration is in regular
communication with Amtrak. Amtrak has indicated that it is working to
qualify crews for the eventual return of Adirondack service even as it
faces crew constraints across its network.

Question 1.c. How has the sale of the rail infrastructure in and
around Montreal between Canadian National (CN) and CDPQ Infra impacted
the agreements between the United States and Canada?
Answer. FRA understands that Amtrak is working actively to restore
Adirondack service in partnership with the state sponsor, host
railroads, and others. FRA is unaware of any agreements with Canada
that discuss or are affected by rail infrastructure sales.

Question 1.d. Please provide a timeline by which the Adirondack
line will return to full operating capacity and an explanation of the
ongoing delays.
Answer. Amtrak has told FRA that it hopes to restore Adirondack
service as soon as possible, but operational complexities related to
cross-border service make setting a firm target difficult.

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

Question 1. Mr. Secretary, the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
included my legislation with Senators Stabenow (D-MI) and Baldwin (D-
WI) finally creating a uniform, governmentwide ``Buy American''
standard for federally funded infrastructure projects, including
transportation and public works projects built with federal grant funds
or financing. Under the 2021 law, this new governmentwide ``Buy
American'' standard and any waiver granted on a case-by-case basis is
supposed to be coordinated by the newly authorized Made in America
Office at the White House. Mr. Secretary, can you please speak to what
your Department is doing to fully implement the new governmentwide
``Buy American'' standard under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law?
Answer. One of the Administration's top policy priorities is to
support American workers and businesses by rebuilding our Nation's
manufacturing base. On January 25, 2021, President Biden issued
Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by
All of America's Workers, which states that ``the United States
Government should, consistent with applicable law, use terms and
conditions of federal financial assistance awards and Federal
procurements to maximize the use of goods, products, and materials
produced in, and services offered in, the United States.'' As one of
the leading federal agencies in providing financial assistance for
infrastructure development projects and applying domestic content
preference requirements (i.e., Buy America(n) requirements), the
Department is committed to helping the President achieve this important
goal.
In accordance with the requirements found in section 70913 of the
Build America, Buy America Act (BABA), part of the historic Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law (BIL), the Department developed a report entitled
DOT's Identification of Federal Financial Assistance Infrastructure
Programs Subject to the Build America, Buy America Provisions of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The report provides a listing
of the federal financial assistance programs for infrastructure
administered by DOT; a discussion of the domestic content preference
laws and requirements that apply to those programs; and identifies
those programs that are currently not fully consistent with the
requirements of section 70914 of the BABA.

Question 2. In particular, will you commit to revoke 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 now clear: all
``manufactured projects'' used to construct federally funded
transportation projects should be made in America, not just iron,
steel, and reinformed 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. Again, 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
for federal highway projects are required to be made in America as
required by longstanding federal law and as reinforced by the 2021
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law?
Answer. As stated above, as one of the leading federal agencies in
providing financial assistance for infrastructure development projects
and applying domestic content preference requirements (i.e., Buy
America(n) requirements), the Department is committed to helping the
President achieve this important goal. The BABA, part of BIL, requires
federal agencies to review existing general applicability waivers (such
as the FHWA manufactured products waiver) at least every five years,
including by publishing a notice in the Federal Register seeking
comment on the waiver and, after reviewing the comments received,
publishing a subsequent notice on their determination of whether to
continue or discontinue the waiver. OMB's initial implementation
guidance for the BABA requirements also directed that, should the
review justify retaining the waiver, agencies should consider narrowing
the waiver in a manner that would support supply chain resilience and
boost incentives to manufacture key products domestically, as
appropriate. DOT and FHWA will soon be initiating those reviews in line
with the requirements of the BABA.

Question 3. The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides over
$110 billion to repair the nation's highways, bridges, and roads,
including almost $40 billion to repair and replace our aging bridges.
FHWA, DOD, GAO and other federal agencies have long held that
utilization of coatings and corrosion mitigation and prevention
industry best practices extends the lifecycle of our nation's
infrastructure while enhancing public safety, protecting the
environment, and saving taxpayer money. Although the House-passed
version of H.R.3684 contained language mandating that state departments
of transportation only utilize contractors on federal bridge projects
that are certified to be operating under a corrosion management system
that utilizes industry best practices, that language was unfortunately
not included in the final law. As such, many state and local entities
receiving federal highway and transit funding may not have corrosion
management systems in place that will allow them to meet the 2021 law's
goals of reducing the number of bridges in America in poor condition.
Will you commit that your Department will work closely with eligible
entities to assist them with the establishment or improvement of state
and local corrosion management systems that include industry-recognized
standards and corrosion mitigation and prevention methods?
Answer. FHWA is committed to supporting States in addressing bridge
corrosion through research and technical assistance to advance the
state of practice in bridge preservation. Acting on recommendations
made in the September 2021 Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Report Highway Bridges: Federal Highway Administration Could Better
Assist States with Information on Corrosion Practices, GA0-21-104249,
FHWA plans to conduct two regional peer exchanges focused on corrosion
mitigation before July 1, 2023: one for the midwest and northeast
States, which have environments with arid conditions or that experience
frequent freeze/thaw cycles and use de-icing chemicals on their highway
bridges, and the other for the southeast States which have environments
that experience freeze/thaw cycles and/or have highway bridges that are
exposed to a saltwater environment. These peer exchanges will focus on
States' practices and materials used that mitigate bridge corrosion.
Based on these shared experiences and lessons learned, FHWA will also
publish case studies or otherwise communicate the findings to help
states to improve their bridge preservation programs.

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
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. We developed this 2018
law after more than 15 years of studies and recommendations by the
federal government and to codify the recommendations by the Obama
Administration's PNT Executive Committee--chaired by the then-Deputy
Secretaries of Transportation and Defense: 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. As such, I was displeased and somewhat
surprised to see that the President's Budget requests for FY2022 and
FY2023 proposed the repeal of the National Timing Resilience and
Security Act of 2018 (Section 514 of Public Law 115-282). When, where,
and why did your Department decide against a land-based back-up GPS
system, as recommended by the Obama PNT Executive Committee and
required by Section 514 of Public Law 115-282?
Answer. In 2020, DOT conducted a demonstration of a number of PNT
technologies ranging from Terrestrial RF, Low Earth Orbit, Fiber Optic,
and Map Match capabilities. The technologies tested provided a level of
positioning, navigation, and/or timing performance (as documented in
the Complementary PNT and GPS Backup Technologies Demonstration Report,
prepared in response to Sec. 1606 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for FY18). However, no single solution can provide GPS back-up or
complementary positioning, navigation and/or timing services that can
meet the diversity of critical infrastructure requirements.
Also, 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
terrestrial solution for non-federal users, as described under the
National Timing Resilience and Security Act of 2018 (NTRSA), which is
the rationale for why the President's Budget has never requested
funding to implement NTRSA and why the Administration has proposed in
the FY 2022 and FY 2023 President's Budget to repeal this
authorization.

Question 5. I understand that the U.S. Department of Transportation
is working to develop guidance on and distribution mechanisms for
community project funds awarded by Congress for fiscal year 2022.
Community project funds were intended to be spent expediently, with
strong transparency and oversight requirements. However, it is my
understanding that the Federal Transit Administration has not yet
issued formal guidance to community project funding recipients,
including those in my Congressional district. Would you please describe
where the Federal Transit Administration is in its community project
funding process and how the agency will work diligently to expediently
deliver these funds in a transparent manner? Does the Federal Transit
Administration plan to deliver these funds through its existing formula
mechanisms or is it considering a different process?
Answer. On April 6, 2022, FTA made the community project funds
available within its electronic grant system, TrAMS, and published the
list of projects on the FTA website: https://www.transit.dot.gov/
funding/apportionments/table-20-fy-2022-transit-infrastructure-grants-
community-project.
FTA issued Formal Guidance on this funding on April 28, 2022 as
part of the Federal Register Notice of FTA Transit Program Changes,
Authorized Funding Levels and Implementation of the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act; and FTA Fiscal Year 2022 Apportionments,
Allocations, Program Information and Interim Guidance. See Chapter IV,
Section R FY 2022 Transit Infrastructure Grants--Community Project
Funding/ Congressionally Directed Spending at: https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/FR-2022-04-28/pdf/2022-09143.pdf.
These funds are being administered consistent with FTA formula
funds and/or projects selected competitively. The identified recipient
applies for the project in FTA's electronic grant making system, TrAMS,
working with the applicable FTA Regional Office.

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

Question 1. Public-private partnerships can help stretch the
Federal dollar further. One provision I've been monitoring from the
IIJA is Section 71001, Asset Concessions, which provides technical
assistance and other resources to state and local transportation
agencies that are interested in engaging the private sector in public
private partnership, asset concessions, and other innovative financing.
Can you update me on the status of this new program?
Answer. DOT's Build America Bureau is finalizing a Notice of
Funding Opportunity for this program, which we expect to announce to
the public by the end of this calendar year. This program will break
new ground by facilitating access to expert services and grants to help
eligible applicants evaluate public-private partnerships and other
innovative financing.

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

Capital Investment Grants (C-I-G) program and Transit:
Question 1. For decades, communities of color and low-income
communities have been ill-served by our transportation system--they
face a higher burden of pollution and fewer affordable, safe
transportation options. One means to address this is to build more
high-quality transit lines, such as the Atlanta-area transit agency
MARTA's proposal for the Southlake Bus Rapid Transit project, which
will serve an area made up of 93 percent minority individuals. The
Southlake BRT project is in the pipeline for the federal Capital
Investment Grants (C-I-G) program. The Federal Transit Administration
is currently developing new guidance for the C-I-G program, which will
significantly influence which projects qualify and receive funding in
the future.
Mr. Secretary, how will your department ensure this new guidance,
and the C-I-G program generally, will support equity and deliver real
results for underserved communities?
Answer. The Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Program project
evaluation criteria in existence today already incorporate equity
considerations, and FTA is currently examining ways the program can be
improved to further advance equity and improve projects delivered for
underserved communities. The existing mobility criterion gives double
credit to trips forecast to be made on the proposed project by transit
dependent persons (those who are either in the lowest income category
or do not own cars, however that is defined locally). The existing land
use criterion includes an examination of population, employment, and
affordable housing that exists today in the proposed project corridor,
while the Economic Development criterion examines the plans and
policies in place locally to maintain and increase affordable housing.
Additionally, FTA published a Request for Information in the Federal
Register in 2021 that sought public input on ways equity considerations
could be further incorporated in the CIG project evaluation process.
FTA is reviewing the extensive comments received and plans to propose
revised CIG guidance for public comment in 2023.

NDAA Amendment:
Question 2. Mr. Secretary, the House recently passed an amendment
to the NDAA that I authored, which relates to the Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise program applicable to highway, transit, and safety
programs. The amendment eliminates the gross receipts cap in effect for
DBEs working on surface transportation projects. This amendment ensures
that the definition of a DBE is consistent across DOT programs, as it
brings surface transportation in line with how the FAA defines a DBE
and ensures that DOT follows SBA definitions for a small business.
Question 2.a. Do you support the elimination of the gross receipts
cap for surface transportation programs?
Answer. Yes. The amendment removes the average annual gross
receipts limit authorized in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) in
favor of the Small Business Administration's (SBA) government-wide
small business size standards under the North American Industry
Classification System.

Question 2.b. What additional steps is your Department taking to
promote maximum participation by DBEs in DOT programs?
Answer. The DBE program is designed to help give small,
disadvantaged businesses a fair opportunity to compete for DOT-funded
contracts by addressing ongoing and continuing effects of past
discrimination in highway, transit, and airport contracting projects as
well as airport concession contracts that are not DOT-funded. This
continues to be a top priority for the Department and the
Administration.
DOT funding recipients and transit vehicle manufacturers are
required to set narrowly tailored goals for DBE participation based on
their contracting needs and relative availability of DBEs as compared
to all firms in their local markets. DOT works with the relevant
operating administrations to assist recipients in meeting regulatory
requirements to ensure DBEs have a fair opportunity to compete by
providing technical assistance and sharing best practices. DOT also
provides technical assistance to applicant and certified firms,
continually looking for methods to streamline the certification
process. The Operating Administrations develop ways to ensure
compliance while eliminating ineffective practices by creating
monitoring and oversight tools to assist recipients in removing
barriers to participation while meeting regulatory requirements. The
Department provides frequent training to funding recipients, and the
operating administrations conduct complaint investigations and perform
reviews when technical assistance is insufficient in remedying
noncompliance. Additional efforts are described here:
1. The DBE Supportive Services (DBE/SS) Program is created by
statute and applies to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recipients
only. DBE/SS supports the DBE program by helping states train DBEs,
improve their business practices, overcome barriers to success, and
assist the firms to become viable, self-sufficient, and capable of
competing for, and performing in, DOT-assisted highway projects. DBE/SS
funds are distributed among states that request funding through
Statements of Work that meet regulatory requirements. The funds are
distributed using an administrative formula based on States' shares of
overall Federal-aid highway funding. While state DOTs are not required
to have a DBE/SS program, DOTs accepting DBE/SS funds are required to
include a business development element as part of their DBE program.
Business Development Programs (BDPs) evaluate firms individually and
provide a structured process for the DBEs to receive firm-specific
training and guidance to be competitive within the heavy highway
marketplace. The DBE/SS program is authorized at $10 million per year
for FY 2022 through FY 2026. DBE/SS funds are eligible for a 100
percent federal share, with no matching funds from the State required.
2. Recent Notices of Funding Opportunity (NOFOs) for discretionary
grant programs have noted that equity considerations, including
utilization of DBEs, should be integrated into the planning,
development, and implementation of transportation investments.
3. In Spring 2022, the Department conducted several webinars for
our recipients on how to properly implement the DBE rule's provisions.
This is in addition to operating administration specific trainings like
the FAA's National Civil Rights Training Conference for Airports,
FHWA's AASHTO Civil Rights Conference, and FTA's National Transit
Institute DBE course.
4. The Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on
July 21, 2022, that proposes numerous amendments to the program rules.
Our proposals are intended to modernize and improve the DBE and Airport
Concession DBE programs. DOT's DBE program staff conducted seven public
outreach sessions to describe the major categories of changes being
proposed and encourage public comment.
5. The FAA Office of Civil Rights (ACR) operates a program
management system, FAA Connect, to track and ensure compliance with the
Department's DBE regulations for airport and airport concession
contracts under the FAA's ambit. ACR is currently working to add
reporting and notification functionality to the FAA Connect toolset. In
September, ACR executed an intra-agency agreement with DOT for further
development to FAA Connect to allow a greater degree of interfacing by
other DOT OAs with the system.
6. Office of Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU)
promotes DBE participation by supporting state and local government
entities through its Small Business Transportation Resource Centers
(SBTRCs). SBTRCs provide an array of technical assistance to build the
capacity of Small and Disadvantaged Businesses, making the businesses
more competitive when bidding on DOT procurement opportunities and
federally funded contracts. Services include the following:
Business Analyses
Market Research and Procurement Assistance
General Management & Technical Assistance
Business Counseling & Coaching
Regional Planning Committees
Liaison between Prime Contractors and Sub-Contractors
Outreach/Conference Participation
Capital Access and Bond Education and Surety Bond
Assistance
Women & Girls in Transportation Initiative (WITI)

Connected Vehicle Technologies:
Question 3. Mr. Secretary--One NHTSA study estimates V2X, or
vehicle-to-everything, technology can prevent up to 80% of all crashes
involving non-impaired drivers. This could save thousands of lives and
prevent or mitigate millions of crashes every year. In March last year
you testified the spectrum is a very important priority for
transportation communications and public safety. Since that time the
FCC issued a ruling on spectrum and The National Transportation Safety
Board issued safety recommendations to the FCC, to protect against
harmful interference, and to the Department of Transportation to
implement a plan for nationwide deployment of V2X technology.
We know from recent history with the FAA and 5G that interference
can be a concern. We would not want to see similar interagency dynamics
transpire again and prevent V2X from being fully deployed and
leveraged. How is the DOT working with the FCC protect the 5.9ghz V2X
safety spectrum from the potential for harmful interference?
Answer. The Department remains committed to deploying V2X
technology as it offers a transformative way--using real-time data--to
assess safety threats and hazards as they emerge on the roadway,
including threats to vulnerable road users, and to enable warnings and
other safety protections. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
removed a portion of spectrum, leaving DOT with 30 MHz, and changed the
communication technology that would be allowed for V2X uses. We are
beginning work with our stakeholders to prioritize a focused set of V2X
safety applications to use in this smaller band and with the new
cellular-based technology; and DOT is finalizing analysis to help the
FCC understand the parameters from other devices (including 5G) to
minimize interference--in particular, in-vehicle interference with the
basic safety message. Further, our technical experts are looking at
whether there are other ways in unlicensed bands to achieve V2X
benefits outside of the 30 MHz--however, these alternative bands are
more likely to face interference than the applications in the dedicated
30 MHz spectrum band. DOT remains in communication with the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and FCC at the
technical staff level.

Question 4. I know that your priorities at the Department of
Transportation include implementing the Infrastructure and Investment
Jobs Act, reducing deaths on our roadways, and ensuring the US stays
competitive and on the cutting edge in all forms of transportation
technology but especially those that can save lives--like V2X.
What is the Department of Transportation doing to advance and
deploy this life saving technology as it works toward its goal of zero
deaths on our roadways?
Answer. The Department remains engaged and energized towards
deploying V2X applications in the 30 MHz spectrum allocation under the
FCC Report and Order. On August 24-25, 2022, the Department hosted over
600 participants at a public event, ``Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X)
Communications Summit: Preparing for V2X Deployment'', held at DOT
Headquarters. Representatives from the NTIA, FCC, National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Original Equipment Manufacturers
(OEMs), Infrastructure Owners-Operators (IOOs), ITS America, Alliance
for Automotive Innovation, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, academia, and State and local governments
attended, and both provided and heard updates on V2X testing and
deployment from Department leadership, multi-modal technical teams, and
leading-edge V2X deployers. The Department highlighted V2X deployment
opportunities made available by grants funded through BIL, including
the Advanced Transportation Technologies and Innovative Mobility
Deployment (ATTIMD) (also known as Advanced Transportation Technology
and Innovation (ATTAIN) Program), Strengthening Mobility and
Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART), and Safe Streets and Roads for
All (SSA4) programs.
Attendees also took part in ``breakout'' discussions (live and
virtually), focusing on the path forward with the 30 MHz of spectrum in
the 5.9GHz band along with approaches to leverage other available and
emerging communications options to enable V2X deployments. A key
takeaway from some stakeholders was the desire for DOT--in consultation
with, among others, OEMs, IOOs, tech companies and ITS America--to
develop a vision for interoperable and cybersecure connected deployment
nationwide by continuing to work in an open and collaborative manner
with the FCC and NTIA.

Aviation:
Question 5. Atlanta Hartsfield just received a $40 million grant to
modernize their terminal under the IIJA's Airport Terminal Program.
Question 5.a. Secretary Buttigieg how will this project, and other
IIJA terminal expansion projects, will benefit passengers in the
future?
Answer. The Atlanta Hartsfield project will widen Concourse D to
increase capacity and accessibility by enlarging hold rooms, increasing
the central corridor width for passenger flow and movement, and
ensuring the restrooms meet current ADA compliance standards. These
improvements will enhance mobility for individuals with disabilities
and cart mobility for those needing transportation within the
concourse.
Many projects selected for FY 2022 Airport Terminal Program funding
provide similar improvements to terminals and upgrades to jet bridges,
baggage claim systems, and roadways leading to the terminal.

Question 5.b. Airport Terminal Program also includes projects that
``improve access for historically disadvantaged populations''. Has the
FAA awarded or plans to award any grants under this specific criteria?
And what some of these projects may look like?
Answer. The FAA considered projects that improve airport access for
historically disadvantaged populations when making project selections
for the FY 2022 Airport Terminal Program (ATP). The FY 2022 ATP
projects announced by the Secretary on July 7, 2022, include 58
projects ($958 million) that indicated they would improve access for
historically disadvantaged populations. Examples include:
Spokane International Airport (GEG)--The Concourse C
project of the Terminal Renovation and Expansion Program (TREX). The
GEG market serves 41 historically disadvantaged population census
tracks. Increasing terminal capacity enhances mobility/accessibility
for farmers & migrant workers, Kalispel and Spokane Tribal members, and
Alaskan natives living/working in the region. The project includes
concession areas for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE), Woman
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (WDBE), and Veteran-owned and small
start-up businesses.
Eppley Airfield (OMA)--Improve Terminal Building/Modify
Access Road, Phase 3 project. Constructs a new terminal drop-off area,
increasing capacity by 65 percent with seven lanes and a full canopy.
The project includes improved curb areas for ADA compliance and public
transportation. OMA is located in a historically disadvantaged area
(HDA). The airport's engagement with the local transit authority on an
expanded 7-day/week bus route is directly linked to HDAs. The project
provides workforce accessibility and enhances multi-modal options
(including public buses) for passengers and vehicles.
Denver International Airport (DEN)--Replace baggage
handling system curbside conveyors and controls. Replacement is for
original equipment installed in 1994 that is past its useful life. This
project will help DEN achieve its goal of increasing passenger volume
from 69 million annual passengers (MAP) to 100 MAP in the next 10
years. DEN commits to expanding prime contractor opportunities for
minority businesses in Underserved Communities to create generational
wealth with these procurements following the Administration's Executive
Order 13985 (Advancing Racial Equity) and its Justice 40 provision.

Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act:
Question 6. Mr. Secretary, Transit in our communities is as
essential as food on our tables, clothes on our backs and a roof over
our heads. That's why last year I introduced the Stronger Communities
Through Better Transit Act that I authored, which would provide $20
billion annually for four years ($80B total) to transit systems for
their operating budgets. The bill aims to provide more frequent service
on bus and rail lines, and to prioritize that service to places with
existing poor service, disadvantaged communities and areas of
persistent poverty.
Mr. Secretary, how will your department ensure that public transit
is able to receive the operating support it needs?
Answer. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) substantially
increased funding for public transportation, authorizing $108 billion
between FY 2022 through FY 2026--the most significant federal
investment in transit in the nation's history. These funds include
substantial increases to formula and competitive programs that can be
used to deliver more frequent service on bus and rail lines and improve
service provision for disadvantaged communities and in areas of
persistent poverty.

Questions from Hon. David Rouzer to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of
Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

Question 1. Has the Department of Transportation provided any
comment or analysis to the Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps
of Engineers, Office of Management and Budget, or any other executive
branch agency related to the Biden Administration's announced or
ongoing actions related to changing the definition of Waters of the
United States under the Water Pollution Control Act from that
promulgated under the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule? If so,
what form has this taken?
Answer. The Department of Transportation (DOT) is an active
participant in the interagency regulatory review process on any
rulemaking developed by another federal agency that could have an
impact on our programs and policies.

Question 2. Has the Department of Transportation conducted any
analysis or review of how the Biden Administration's announced or
ongoing actions related to changing the definition of Waters of the
United States under the Water Pollution Control Act from that
promulgated under the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule will affect
infrastructure projects conducted or funded by the Department? If so,
what form has this taken?
Answer. As mentioned in the previous answer, DOT is an active
participant in the interagency regulatory review process on any
rulemaking developed by another federal agency that could have an
impact on our programs and policies.

Questions from Hon. Dina Titus to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of
Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

Question 1. Secretary Buttigieg, I know your office has a
tremendous lift in getting award notices and notices for funding
opportunities out in the required timeframes. While many are eager and
grateful for the opportunity to apply for additional funds, the time
lapse between award announcements could mean applicants feel pressure
to use precious time and resources to apply for alternative funding
opportunities as they await news on pending applications.
Question 1.a. Are there any steps the Administration can take to
move more quickly in reviewing applications and awarding grants?
Answer. The large increase in funding made available under the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) as well as the creation of many new
programs has inspired more communities to seek federal discretionary
grant funding than ever before. Despite the unprecedented challenge, we
are fully committed to ensuring thousands of grant applications receive
full and fair consideration in a timely manner. We are making progress
expanding the teams responsible for grant review and have made efforts
to coordinate our reviews on several major grant programs.

Question 1.b. Does the Administration have any plans to allow
applicants to ``bundle'' applications as you did with the Multimodal
Funding Discretionary Grant which covers the INFRA, MEGA, and RURAL
programs?
Answer. The Department is very conscious of applicant burden when
establishing new programs and must constantly balance streamlining with
requesting sufficient information to address a wide variety of
statutory requirements. As the Department reviews the first year of the
Multimodal Discretionary Grant program, we will make every effort to
consider how the combined solicitation model could be improved upon in
future years.

Question 2. Secretary Buttigieg, as you may be aware, my district
contains portions of Las Vegas, which has been identified as one of the
fastest warming cities in the country. Our region has ranked at or near
the top of the list of cities with heat island impacts over the last
two decades, with Las Vegas experiencing summer temperatures that are
an astonishing 24 degrees warmer than the rural areas surrounding the
valley. Extreme conditions can cause buses to break down more often--
but at the same time, transit operators are limited on the number of
spare buses they can keep in their fleet to comply with the FTA's spare
ratio policy.
Accordingly, have you given consideration to increasing the spare
ratio for transit operators, particularly those in regions with extreme
weather? This would enable operators to quickly deploy vehicles in
response to breakdowns, helping maintain service for riders.
Answer. FTA's spare ratio policy ensures that buses procured with
federal funds are used for their intended purpose--to provide public
transportation services for American communities--and ensures transit
agencies provide appropriate maintenance for their fleets. For
operators of 50 or more buses in fixed-route service, FTA permits
agencies to procure spare buses up to 20 percent of the number of
vehicles operated in maximum fixed-route service. For example, if a
transit agency operates 100 fixed-route vehicles during peak service,
FTA permits it to have 20 additional vehicles as spares. In addition to
these spares, FTA permits transit agencies to retain vehicles past
their useful life as part of a contingency fleet for emergencies or
unforeseen events, such as extreme weather events, or for the
introduction of zero-emission buses. These contingency vehicles are not
included in the spare ratio. Combined, the spare ratio and contingency
fleet policy ensure that substantial federal investments in buses
result in assets staying in productive service while recognizing the
operational needs of transit agencies in times of emergency.

Question 3. Secretary Buttigieg, you recognize the importance of
infrastructure projects for the growth of our communities and the role
transit plays in addressing the climate crisis, doubly so for a fast-
growing State like Nevada. A great example is the RTC of Southern
Nevada's Maryland Parkway Bus Rapid Transit project which will enhance
mobility along a key corridor for our region.
Given the current economic climate, can you speak to how DOT is
helping transit agencies deal with inflation and keep critical projects
like converting to zero-emission fleets on track?
Answer. BIL substantially increased funding for public
transportation, authorizing $108 billion between FY 2022 through FY
2026--the most significant federal investment in transit in the
nation's history. On August 16, 2022, FTA announced $1.66 billion in
grants to transit agencies, territories, and states across the country
to invest in 150 bus fleets and facility projects. Funded by BIL, more
than 1,100 of those vehicles will use zero-emissions technology, which
reduces air pollution and helps meet the President's goal of net-zero
emissions by 2050. This year's funding alone will nearly double the
number of no-emission transit buses on America's roadways.
FTA's Low or No Emission (Low-No) Grant Program makes funding
available to help transit agencies buy or lease U.S.-built low- or no-
emission vehicles, including related equipment or facilities. The BIL
provides $5.5 billion over five years for the Low-No Program--more than
six times greater than the previous five years of funding. For FY 2022,
approximately $1.17 billion was available for grants under this
program.
For the first time, five percent of low- and no-emission bus
funding will also be used to train transit workers on how to maintain
and operate new clean bus technology. To support transit agencies as
they develop workforce fleet transition plans, FTA's first workforce
technical assistance center--the Transit Workforce Center (TWC)--
created and posted on their website targeted resources to help transit
agencies develop these important plans. The TWC is also providing
direct workforce development technical assistance upon request to
select transit agencies. The TWC has released a recruiting toolkit that
transit agencies can tailor for their specific workforce needs. These
actions will help recruit, retain, and train the transit workforce
needed today and tomorrow to safely maintain and operate new clean bus
technologies.
Funding for zero-emission vehicles is also available in FTA's other
formula and competitive programs. For example, FTA's grants for Buses
and Bus Facilities Program supports transit agencies in buying and
rehabilitating buses and vans and building bus maintenance facilities.
The BIL provides nearly $2 billion over five years for the program. For
FY 2022, approximately $550 million for grants was available under this
program.
FTA has been engaging a variety of stakeholders, including transit
agencies and the private sector, to better understand the challenges
they face and how FTA can best support the transit industry as it
navigates both the opportunities and challenges of this moment.

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

Question 1. The short line freight rail industry is made up of
about 600 small business railroads. It's estimated that nearly $12
billion of investment is needed to ensure the industry can meet the
needs of the economy.
Six weeks ago, 24 short lines were awarded CRISI grants to improve
rail safety and make the network more efficient. Federal Railroad
Administrator Bose testified before this committee on the importance of
CRISI for short lines.
Can you discuss your commitment to use the CRISI program to improve
supply chain efficiency and invest in key safety goals, like allowing
short line freight rail to upgrade and make important repairs?
Answer. Short line railroads are a vital element in our freight
supply chain and conduit for essential transportation throughout the
country. Improving their efficiency helps reduce costs and ensure
Americans have dependable access to goods and services. DOT is fully
committed to advancing rail infrastructure improvements through CRISI
and other federal grant programs.
Thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), on September 2,
2022, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a new Notice of
Funding Opportunity for the FY 2022 CRISI program, for over $1.4
billion. This is the largest amount of funding ever made possible
through this program. The CRISI program advances projects that
modernize America's freight and passenger rail infrastructure, allowing
people and goods to move more safely and efficiently and helping make
goods more affordable for American families. The transformational
funding will enable short line railroads to make key investments to
repair and upgrade infrastructure to ensure they can continue to serve
customers and increase capacity.

Question 2. The Department of Transportation is moving forward with
a new rule that could require railroads to hire more personnel or
operate with more people on a train than is necessary.
Question 2.a. Businesses across America are struggling to find hard
workers--why would the agency consider forcing the rail industry to
hire folks they don't need?
Answer. As noted in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
published on July 28, 2022, titled ``Train Crew Size Safety
Requirements,'' FRA proposed this rule to ensure that trains are
adequately staffed for their intended operation and have appropriate
safeguards in place for safe train operations, whenever using a crew of
fewer than two persons. On October 27, 2022, FRA published notice that
the public comment period for the NPRM had been extended until December
21, 2022, and that a public hearing on the NPRM will be held on
December 14, 2022. The in-person hearing will be held in Washington,
DC, and an option for virtual participation will be provided. FRA
encourages all stakeholders to submit their views and comments on the
proposals outlined in the NPRM during the public comment period.

Question 2.b. Doesn't it make more sense to let small business
railroads invest in their infrastructure--which allows for a safer and
more efficient rail network--instead of being forced to put more people
on the payroll?
Answer. FRA proposed this rule to ensure that trains are adequately
staffed for their intended operation and have appropriate safeguards in
place for safe train operations, whenever using a crew of fewer than
two persons. FRA encourages all stakeholders to submit their views and
comments on the proposals outlined in the NPRM during the public
comment period.

Question 2.c. Freight customers have serious complaints about
freight rail service. If railroads can't meet your unnecessary
requirements, isn't it possible that even fewer trains will run,
further reducing service and increasing supply chain delays?
Answer. As noted above, FRA's proposed rule is designed to ensure
that trains are adequately staffed for their intended service. FRA
welcomes comments from all stakeholders on the proposals included in
the NPRM, including any potential unanticipated impacts of the proposed
rule.

Question 3. I previously asked you about third-party verification
of roadside safety hardware test results.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act included provisions to
reduce conflicts of interest in crash testing and encourage 3rd party
verification.
What has the US Department of Transportation done to implement
these provisions?
Answer. Section 11517 of BIL states ``To the maximum extent
practicable, the Secretary shall develop a process for third party
verification of full-scale crash testing results from crash test labs,
including a method for formally verifying the testing outcomes and
providing for an independent pass/fail determination. In establishing
such a process, the Secretary shall seek to ensure the independence of
crash test labs by ensuring that those labs have a clear separation
between device development and testing in cases in which lab employees
test devices that were developed within the parent organization of the
employee.'' The manner in which the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) addresses the ``clear separation'' requirement will be
influenced by the approach used in developing a third-party
verification process.
After a GAO Report was issued on this subject, FHWA began
contacting accreditation bodies, crash-test laboratories, and industry
to research organizations capable of conducting third-party
verification of testing. FHWA and the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) worked to identify a
strategy and organization qualified to conduct a third-party
verification to move to the implementation phase. FHWA and AASHTO also
coordinated with crash test laboratories and the American Traffic
Safety Services Association, which represents the roadside hardware
industry, to gain further insights in developing a third-party process.
Detailed discussions took place with two different prominent
international organizations. First, FHWA contacted the American Society
of Testing and Materials (ASTM) as a possible organization to do the
third-party verification. FHWA held several meetings and a workshop
with ASTM, AASHTO, and State DOTs. However, ASTM withdrew from the
negotiations after concluding that third-party verification did not fit
well within its business model. Based on recommendations, FHWA then
held discussions with Underwriters Laboratories (UL). After these
discussions in 2019, UL also ended negotiations after concluding third-
party verification did not fit with its business model either.
With respect to a clear separation between device development and
testing in cases where lab employees test devices that were developed
within their parent organization, FHWA has a regulation (23 CFR
637.209(a)(5)) that requires laboratories conducting crash testing to
be accredited by a recognized accreditation body. The laboratories are
accredited in accordance with International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) 17025, which requires conflict of interest checks
prior to certification. FHWA will continue to find ways to ensure that
there is a clearer separation of device development and crash testing
as we work through options regarding third-party verification. We
understand that organizations may be more likely to be involved in a
third-party verification process if the Manual for Assessing Safety
Hardware (MASH) were written as a performance specification. AASHTO is
in the process of converting MASH into a set of performance
specifications. This effort will take approximately three years to
complete.

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

Question 1. The IIJA included $800 million per year for culvert
removal, replacement, and restoration to address fish passage. The
money flows through DOT in coordination with NMFS. It is my
understanding that FHWA has taken the lead within DOT. Could you please
give us a status update of where this funding has gone to date and if
you plan on tailoring the spending beyond block grants to states?
Answer. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) establishes the
National Culvert Removal, Replacement, and Restoration Grant program to
provide funding, through a competitive grant program, for projects that
would meaningfully improve or restore passage for anadromous fish. The
BIL provides $1 billion in advance appropriations ($200 million
annually) for the program for FY 2022 through FY 2026.
This program is a Departmental priority, and we are working
expeditiously to implement it. Since June 2022, the Department has been
consulting with both National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to advance the program and take
advantage of their experiences in similar programs. We also have been
reaching out to and listening to Tribal and underserved communities to
understand and integrate their important insights and needs. A Notice
of Funding Opportunity was released for this competitive grant program
in October 2022 and an external webinar on ``How to Apply for National
Culvert Removal, Replacement, and Restoration Grants: General
Overview'' was delivered later in the month. The Department anticipates
making awards to eligible entities (a state, unit of local government,
or Indian Tribe) to execute specific projects for replacement, removal,
and repair of culverts or weirs that improve or restore passage for
anadromous fish.

Questions from Hon. Brian J. Mast to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of
Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

Question 1. How does the Department establish, prioritize, and
track cybersecurity requirements for operational technology such as
freight and passenger rail, and commercial aviation?
Answer. The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) National
Airspace System (NAS) is designated as critical infrastructure and, as
such, the systems that provide critical services to the aviation
ecosystem function in an operational technology (OT) capacity. The Air
Traffic Organization (ATO) utilizes a robust cybersecurity program to
assess, analyze, prioritize and track cybersecurity requirements for
system, services and assets. The FAA examines the agency's complete OT
environment and works closely with stakeholders to understand the
unique industry and internal workflow challenges. It makes best-in-
class enterprise recommendations to protect ATC infrastructure.
The FAA tailors the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) guidance to Identify, Protect,
Detect, Respond and Recover from vulnerabilities discovered in all OT
assets, commensurate to the categorization and criticality of each
system, services and data. Findings are then analyzed and measured,
accounting for the exploitability, probability, impact, and
compensations each control may have. Once the analysis is completed,
the FAA performs an enterprise risk-based approach to prioritize and
track the cybersecurity requirements that pose the highest risk and
impact to aviation.
FRA regulations developed in 2011 require cyber security for
positive train control (PTC) communications. These regulations were
developed in 2011 in consultation with TSA and other Government
agencies and require cryptographic message integrity and
authentication, consistent with the National Institute of Standards
(NIST) approved algorithms. FRA also requires, as part of new
technology development, testing and approval associated for locomotive
electronics and signaling and train control (including PTC) systems, a
risk and hazard assessment that is to take into account cyber security
risks.
FRA also works closely with TSA regarding rail cybersecurity. On
December 2, 2021, TSA issued Security Directive 1580-21-01: ``Enhancing
Rail Cybersecurity'' and 1582-21-01: ``Enhancing Public Transportation
and Passenger Railroad Cybersecurity''. These directives apply to the
seven (7) Class I freight railroads, rail hazardous materials shippers
and any railroad that hosts Class I railroads and freight operations of
rail hazardous materials and Amtrak and most passenger rail operators
in major metropolitan areas (approximately 12). The directive went into
effect December 31, 2021. The Security Directive requires the owner/
operator of an applicable railroad or railroad carrier to:
Designate a Cybersecurity Coordinator who is required to
be available to TSA and CISA 24/7 to coordinate cyber practices and
address any incidents;
Report cybersecurity incidents to CISA no later than 24
hours after a cybersecurity incident is identified;
Develop and adopt a Cybersecurity Incident Response Plan;
and
Conduct a cybersecurity vulnerability assessment using a
form provided by TSA.

On October 18, 2022, TSA issued a revision and update to several
security directives that specifically address cyber security. This is
the culmination of a consultation process with industry. FRA provided
technical and subject matter expertise throughout the process. Core to
these updates is TSA's commitment to strong cybersecurity measures
while providing flexibility in the implementation of security measures
to achieve required security outcomes.
In summary, the updated Directives expand the owner/operators
subject to the Directives to include all railroads that support the
Strategic Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET), the civil rail lines most
important to national defense, provide policies and controls for
railroad Information Technology (IT) and Operational Technology (OT)
systems, and require railroad owners/operators to:
Develop and implement a Cybersecurity Implementation
Plan;
Establish a Cybersecurity Assessment Program and submit
an annual plan to TSA; and
Maintain an up-to-date Cybersecurity Incident Response
Plan.

Specific to the plans, processes, assessments, and mitigations for
both IT systems and OT systems, FRA provided support primarily relating
to OT systems, including Positive Train Control, locomotive control
systems and other systems.
Overall, the security directive updates have been issued due to the
ongoing cybersecurity threat to surface transportation systems and
associated infrastructure to protect against the significant harm to
the national and economic security of the United States that could
result from the ``degradation, destruction, or malfunction of systems
that control this infrastructure.''

Question 2. How will the Department ensure cyber security funds
authorized in the Infrastructure and Jobs Act are accessible to
organizations responsible for critical infrastructure? How will
existing cybersecurity regulations at agencies like the TSA be
prioritized?
Answer. DOT has developed an approach for including cybersecurity
requirements and guidance for discretionary and formula grants,
respectively, that is supported by the National Security Council (NSC),
and the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Transportation Security
Agency (TSA) and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
(CISA). This includes language in discretionary grant agreements
requiring the consideration of cybersecurity subject to DOT and DHS
approval, shown below.

``It is the policy of the United States to strengthen the
security and resilience of its critical infrastructure against
both physical and cyber threats. Each applicant selected for
Federal funding under this notice must demonstrate, prior to
the signing of the grant agreement, effort to consider and
address physical and cyber security risks relevant to the
transportation mode and type and scale of the project. Projects
that have not appropriately considered and addressed physical
and cyber security and resilience in their planning, design,
and project oversight, as determined by the Department and the
Department of Homeland Security, will be required to do so
before receiving funds for construction, consistent with
Presidential Policy Directive 21--Critical Infrastructure
Security and Resilience and the National Security Presidential
Memorandum on Improving Cybersecurity for Critical
Infrastructure Control Systems.''

The approach also includes the use of TSA's previously developed
requirements and guidance, required for discretionary grants, and
issued as guidance for formula grants, shown below.
Post-award, discretionary grantees are to take the following
actions for programs and projects with medium and high cybersecurity
risks, based on existing assessments, guidance, and requirements from
TSA.
We are developing communications for formula grantees urging them
to take the following actions for programs and projects with medium and
high cybersecurity risks, based on existing assessments, guidance, and
requirements from TSA.
Some of these projects may be subject to additional requirements
and guidelines based on TSA's existing directives and guidance. These
usually cover a particular DOT Operating Administration (OA), or a set
of operators known to the OA and TSA. For example, high risk freight
rail operators vs. low risk freight rail operators.
1. Designate a cybersecurity Point of Contact (POC)
2. Prepare a cybersecurity incident reporting plan
3. Prepare a cybersecurity incident response plan
4. Perform a self-assessment of current cybersecurity posture and
capabilities

Question 3. Given the ever-increasing interconnected nature of our
modern freight, rail, and aviation platforms, how will the Department
leverage funding in the Infrastructure and Jobs Act to ensure the
protection of critical safety data onboard platforms and sensors?
Answer. While cybersecurity funding for FAA is not specifically
included in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), cybersecurity is a
priority for the agency. The FAA focuses on the development of
cybersecurity risk management programs, information security standards
and best practices consistent with the federal standards and guidance.
The above support to TSA and FRA review of risk/hazard assessments
as part of the TSA directive and FRA required safety analyses and plans
is how FRA is approaching the increasing level of threats and risks,
given locomotive cab and system integration trends.

Question 4. What cybersecurity criteria does the Department
consider essential for solution providers under the block grant program
established under Sec. 11109?
Answer. Section 11109 of BIL amended 23 U.S.C. 133(b) to add
eligibility under the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG)
for ``Measures to protect a transportation facility otherwise eligible
for assistance under [the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program]
from cybersecurity threats.'' FHWA issued guidance on the STBG Program,
which notes this new eligibility.

Question 5. How will the Department leverage the cyber tool
development and resiliency work of other Departments and agencies as it
works to develop its own tools as required by Sec. 11510?
Answer. As required by section 11510(b)(2)(C) of BIL, FHWA will
coordinate with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and
the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in
developing a tool to assist transportation authorities in identifying,
detecting, protecting against, responding to, and recovering from cyber
incidents. This coordination will provide an opportunity for FHWA to
leverage the work of our co-sector specific agencies (TSA and CISA) in
the development of this tool.

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

Question 1. PortMiami is planning for the nation's first end-to-end
Net Zero Carbon Emissions Resilient Supply Chain (Net Zero Program).
This Net Zero Program presents a regional approach to resolving the
nation's supply chain and climate challenges while achieving critical
objectives of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). I ask
you to close and carefully review PortMiami's Mega and INFRA grant
applications.
Answer. The Department was pleased to award a $16 million RAISE
grant for the PortMiami Net Zero Program, to help expand intermodal
rail capacity and optimize port gate operations. Related project
components included in applications for other grant programs will
receive full and fair consideration.

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

Question 1. The Bay Area is home to the highest concentration of
megacommuters in the country, and four of the country's 10 worst
megacommutes. Yet residents still are not drawn to use the local
transit system, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), whose ridership has not
returned to pre-pandemic levels. As you know, transit ridership numbers
in the United States have always lagged behind our international
counterparts and are not rebounding after the worst of the pandemic.
Question 1.a. Coming out of the COVID pandemic, how do we get
Americans to use transit like residents of Tokyo, Seoul, Paris, and
Montreal where more than 50% of commutes are done on transit?
Answer. While changes in commute trips and other activities are
affecting transit travel, there is continuing evidence of growing
transit ridership in many communities during 2022. Frequent, reliable,
convenient, and safe service contribute to restoring ridership, and the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's (BIL) funding, safety provisions, and
pilot programs will support the type of transit service that will help
facilitate a continued return to transit.

Question 1.b. What can we do to restore the public's faith in
transit, including through measures like proper oversight of federal
funds and improved safety?
Answer. The BIL authorizes up to $108 billion for public
transportation--the largest federal investment in public transportation
in the nation's history. The legislation will advance public
transportation in America's communities through four key priorities:
safety, modernization, climate, and equity.
Public transit is a safe form of transportation. Transit worker and
rider safety is a top priority for the Administration and the
Department of Transportation. Transit workers should expect a safe
workplace and riders should expect a safe trip. FTA will continue to
work with the transit agencies to identify ways to improve the safety
and efficiency of the nation's Transit Systems. Safety is FTA's number
one priority, and FTA is working across the nation to improve the
safety of both transit riders and transit personnel by a focus on
reducing assaults and other safety incidents on transit.
To help ensure the continued safety of our nation's public transit
systems, in 2021, FTA launched the Enhanced Transit Safety and Crime
Prevention Initiative to provide information and resources to help
transit agencies address and prevent crime on their systems and protect
transit workers and riders. These resources also can be used for
overtime pay for enhanced security personnel presence and mental health
and crisis intervention specialists. FTA also funds training for
operators and instructional staff, including courses on ``Assault
Awareness and Prevention'' and ``Violence in the Transit Workplace--
Prevention, Response and Recovery''. These courses provide transit bus
operators with prevention strategies necessary to reduce the likelihood
of assault incidents and knowledge and skills to prevent, respond to,
and recover from workplace violence.
Additionally, BIL provisions will enhance safety by strengthening
rail inspection practices, protecting transit workers and riders from
assault and injury, improving safety training, and instituting measures
to reduce vehicular and pedestrian crashes involving buses.
Additionally, Urbanized Area Formula recipients will certify that
agency safety plans are consistent with Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and state health authority guidelines to minimize exposure
to infectious disease. FTA is taking actions to communicate and
implement these requirements.
FTA works closely with all of its grantees to ensure the proper use
of funds through regular technical assistance, oversight, and a
comprehensive Triennial Review process. FTA is also conducting advanced
reviews of COVID-19 supplemental funding grant awards to identify where
strengthened documentation or procedures are needed. Proper oversight
coupled with improved safety will continue to inspire confidence in
transit.

Question 2. In communities where the fossil fuel industry has a
significant presence and they are a major economic driver, the shift
away from fossil fuels could be catastrophic to the workforce and the
tax base if we do not prepare for it. However, research has shown that
fossil fuel communities would be prime locations for alternative fuel
production such as solar or wind energy. Given the undeniable
connection between the transportation sector and the use of fossil
fuels, how are you coordinating across the various federal agencies to
promote these new forms of energy generation while continuing to set up
fossil fuel communities to prosper? I'm aware of and supportive of the
Interagency Working Group on Coal and Power Plant Communities and
Economic Revitalization--how is that group taking action, and what
other efforts is the Department undertaking?
Answer. DOT is actively participating in the Interagency Working
Group's (IWG) place-based forums with fossil fuel communities around
the nation, helping them to identify prospective DOT grants that may
fit their situations. One such community where a major coal power plant
is closing (Lincoln County in Wyoming) recently won a $1,790,000 RAISE
grant to upgrade its freight rail system, provide EV charging stations,
and improve rural public transit.

Question 3. How can we make sure that investments we are making in
alternative fuel infrastructure, like electric vehicle charging
stations, are placed to maximize efficiency of the system in
coordination with the private sector, including taking into
consideration the reduction of traditional pollutants and greenhouse
gas emissions?
Answer. The electric vehicle (EV) charging provisions in BIL will
help tackle the climate crisis and put us on a path to a nationwide
network of 500,000 EV chargers by 2030 that ensures a convenient,
reliable, affordable, and equitable charging experience for all users.
DOT encourages States to develop programs with cost-share requirements
or rebates to leverage private investment in EV charging and maximize
the impact of the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI)
Formula Program funding. States were encouraged to involve relevant
private sector and industry representatives throughout the development
and deployment of their NEVI State EV Infrastructure Deployment Plans
to allow for the identification of EV charging market opportunities and
challenges, along with potential solutions to address them. As is
discussed in the NEVI Formula Program guidance, funds made available
under the program may be used to contract with a private entity for
acquisition, installation, and operation and maintenance of publicly
accessible EV charging infrastructure (FHWA anticipates that this will
be done in most cases) and the private entity may pay the non-federal
share of the cost of a project funded.
The NEVI Program will support the Justice40 Initiative, which
establishes a goal that at least 40 percent of the overall benefits of
federal investments in climate and clean energy infrastructure are
distributed to disadvantaged communities. Consistent with the Justice40
Interim Guidance, DOT and the Department of Energy (DOE) developed a
joint interim definition of disadvantaged communities for the NEVI
Formula Program. The joint interim definition uses publicly available
data sets that capture vulnerable populations, health, transportation
access and burden, energy burden, fossil dependence, resilience, and
environmental and climate hazards.

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

Question 1. Recently, the U.S. Census Bureau changed the
methodology for defining an urban area. As a result, more than 1,300
small cities, towns, and villages designated as urban will now be
considered rural--despite not having a significant population change.
This includes portions of my district in San Luis Obispo County, where
they have seen increased population over the past decade. The San Luis
Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) estimates that the County will
lose two of three small urbanized areas, which receive about $3.5
million every year in federal transit dollars to help its residents
connect with services and jobs. What resources are available for
communities that are expected to go through this transition? How is the
Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) working with communities,
like San Luis Obispo, to ensure there isn't a loss in transportation
services available to these communities?
Answer. FTA expects the U.S. Census Bureau to provide updated
urbanized area boundaries in late 2022, which will be used to inform FY
2024 apportionments. After the Census Bureau identifies the new
boundaries, FTA will provide technical assistance to all areas with a
change in population significant enough to affect their designation
within the rural or urban formula programs that may impact their
funding levels or the mechanism by which they receive federal funding.
A small urban area that believes it will shift from small urban to
rural should begin to have discussions with the state department of
transportation to determine how funds will be provided to them
beginning in FY 2024 as rural transit funding is administered through
the States and territories. FY 2023 and prior year funds that remain
unobligated or undisbursed may continue to be used by agencies under
their prior designation, which can support their transition.

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

Question 1. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to Secretary
Buttigieg for taking the time to join us today. It's always a pleasure
to hear from a fellow self-proclaimed infrastructure nerd.
I'd also like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to visit
the Kansas Third District earlier this year to participate in a
roundtable with local stakeholders, as well as participating in an
adventurous electric bus tour of US-69, before taking me up on my
invitation to enjoy some of Kansas City's best BBQ at Slap's. I WOULD
ask you if my tour was as satisfying as the BBQ, but I think I know the
answer so I won't ask!
My question revolves around the sort of outreach we experienced at
that roundtable, actually. I have released four reports so far
highlighting the infrastructure needs our district faces: highways,
bridges, water, and safety.
In each of those reports, I demonstrate how laws like the American
Rescue Plan and the IIJA will direct needed resources to address these
issues, at home, in Kansas. I also point out specific projects that
involve roads, bridges, and systems people use every day--and how IIJA
will help improve them. One of the most interesting reactions to these
reports is from some of my constituents who didn't realize how bad the
need was or what a state of disrepair our bridges were in.
Secretary, as you continue implementation of the IIJA and make sure
that this money is being dispensed judiciously, it's important people
also know how and why these projects are occurring.
Question 1.a. Can you comment on USDOT's role in making sure folks
not only know projects are being brought to them by the bipartisan
infrastructure law, but that they know precisely how that money is
being utilized to make their day-to-day experience with infrastructure
better?
Answer. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) provides
generational investments in our nation's infrastructure. The Department
is committed to keeping the public involved and up to date on how these
historic investments will improve day-to-day life for the travelling
public. FHWA has published a customer friendly, public facing ``One-
stop shop'' BIL implementation website that houses useful information
for stakeholders--including guidance, fact sheets, and webinars--with a
special emphasis on impacts to safety, equity, sustainability, and the
workforce. The Department also established the DOT Navigator website to
help local communities plan for and deliver transformative
infrastructure projects and services. The Department is working
diligently to release additional BIL funding opportunities and
information to keep the public apprised of our progress and will
continue to do so.
Additionally, the Administration created the website www.build.gov.
The website provides information for state, local, tribal, and
territorial leaders to help them with IIJA implementation. Further, it
is a roadmap that shows funding available under the law, as well as an
explanatory document that provides program-by-program information.

Question 1.b. How do you see the role of state DOTs and MPOs in
fully implementing IIJA in the long term? Can you speak a little to the
relationship US DOT needs to have with those local organizations to
make this all work?
Thanks again for your time today. I am excited to continue working
with you on a transportation and infrastructure bill that moves our
country forward!
Answer. State DOTs and MPOs are essential partners in the
successful and full implementation of BIL. While states and MPOs are
eligible for both discretionary and formula funding, their roles in
guiding local decision making is crucial to providing optimal
transportation infrastructure as efficiently as possible. The
Department must have a strong, trusting relationship with these local
organizations since they are the front line in working with communities
across the nation on the necessary planning, implementation and
oversight required for BIL to be successful.
BIL creates more opportunities for local governments and other non-
traditional entities to access funding. The Department is committed to
supporting these entities in delivering transformative infrastructure
projects and services through training and technical assistance
programs tailored to the unique needs of local communities. FHWA
provides training and technical assistance for local and rural road
agencies through the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) and for
Tribal communities through the Tribal Technical Assistance Program
(TTAP). DOT also continues to fund technical assistance resources that
directly support State DOTs and MPOs through our FHWA Resource Center,
the Build America Center, and the Every Day Counts initiative, to name
just a few. Additionally, the Department's Rural Opportunities to Use
Transportation for Economic Success (ROUTES) Program addresses
disparities in rural transportation infrastructure by developing user-
friendly tools and information to connect these communities to DOT
funding and technical assistance resources. The new Thriving
Communities Program is specifically designed to provide tailored
technical assistance to local communities to assist them in developing
and delivering infrastructure projects, including pre-application
support. The Department also recently launched the DOT Navigator
website to make it easier for local entities and all our stakeholders
including state DOTs and MPOs to access the help they need in both
competing for funding opportunities and project delivery.

Questions from Hon. Nikema Williams to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary
of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

Question 1. Some of the Department of Transportation's federal
programs are intended for transportation alternatives--such as transit
or bike and pedestrian pathways--but their funds can be transferred to
other federal highway programs that support road and bridge projects.
Secretary Buttigieg, how can the Department of Transportation
encourage or incentivize state and local governments to make
investments and prioritize projects that mitigate congestion and
encourage a shift to more climate-friendly transportation modes?
Answer. In order to meet our Departmental goals and support the
Administration's priorities, our transportation system needs options
for reliable, affordable, and accessible public transportation and
active transportation options that are safe for all users. The
Department is working with state, local, and Tribal governments through
program guidance and technical assistance to support a safe, equitable,
and sustainable transportation system that works for all users.

Question 2. Secretary Buttigieg, the recently launched Reconnecting
Communities Pilot Program is a program that is near and dear to me. The
1956 Federal Aid Highway Act built highways through the middle of
cities, at times to intentionally displace Black families. This left
economic devastation that still exists. Two examples of these
disenfranchising projects are in Georgia's Fifth District: the Sweet
Auburn and Summerhill communities were both divided by the construction
of the Downtown Connector and I-20. There is a direct line between the
decision on where to build the highway and today's racial wealth gap.
The Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program is a long overdue matter of
racial justice. Secretary Buttigieg, how does the Department of
Transportation plan to highlight this new program and what ways will
the Department work to assist and educate local and state governments
with applying?
Answer. DOT has undertaken an extensive array of activities to
assist and educate eligible applicants, including local and state
governments, applying to the Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP)
Program. Early on, we established the Reconnecting Communities Pilot
Program's digital presence with a tri-lingual webpage
www.transportation.gov/reconnecting available in Spanish and Mandarin,
and used press, webinars, social media, and email listservs across DOT
and at sister federal agencies to generate awareness of the program.
There are now over 11,000 subscribers to the Reconnecting Communities
listserv, which provides updates on additional guidance, FAQs, and
webinars. DOT has hosted a number of informational and training
bilingual webinars with over 11,000 attendees, covering topics
determined by expressions of interest from the public. Public webinars
were designed deliberately to facilitate two-way communication and
transparency by allowing open chat and informal poll questions for
insight into applicant challenges and technical assistance needs. A
dedicated email account, staff contact phone number, and DOT regional
and field staff provide individualized support for prospective
applicants.
Under Reconnecting Communities' technical assistance, DOT can use
up to $30 million over five years for technical assistance. DOT will be
using to stand up a learning institute that will include support for
prospective program applicants and program grantees and serve as a two-
way channel to provide information back to DOT senior officials on
challenges encountered by state and local governments in implementation
of the program.

Questions from Hon. Troy A. Carter to Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of
Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

Question 1. Mr. Secretary, can you provide additional details on
what actions US DOT has taken to incorporate the goals of the Justice40
initiative into IIJA program implementation?
Answer. Justice40 is an opportunity to address gaps in
transportation infrastructure and public services by working toward the
goal that many of our grants, programs, and initiatives allocate at
least 40 percent of the overall benefits from federal investments to
disadvantaged communities. It is not a one-time investment, but a
series of changes that will be implemented across the Department.
Through Justice40, DOT will work to increase affordable transportation
options that connect Americans to good-paying jobs, fight climate
change, and improve access to resources and quality of life in
communities in every state and territory in the country. The initiative
allows DOT to identify and prioritize projects that benefit rural,
suburban, Tribal, and urban communities facing barriers to affordable,
equitable, reliable, and safe transportation. DOT will also assess the
negative impacts of transportation projects and systems on
disadvantaged communities and will consider if local community leaders
have been consulted in a meaningful way during the project's
development.
DOT has designated 39 covered programs, representing $204 billion
in DOT funding, as Justice40 covered programs and is currently
developing corresponding benefit metrics for each.

Question 2. Mr. Secretary, does the Department have the capacity to
provide technical assistance to small municipalities that desperately
need infrastructure improvements but may not have the capacity to put
together the application to compete for grants? If not, what sorts of
legislation would be appropriate to provide you with those resources?
Answer. Through the new Thriving Communities program, funded in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, DOT can now help disadvantaged
and underserved communities with certain grant pre-application needs.
Though still under development, we are designing the program
specifically to include assistance with application development and to
undertake some of the required studies and analysis necessary to
receive transportation construction grants. It is especially
challenging for small, rural and Tribal communities to conduct
financial, environmental, and transportation analytics typically
required by Congress as a condition of funding. Therefore, the
authorization and consistent funding as requested in the President's FY
23 budget request for the Thriving Communities program would enable DOT
to reach many more communities to provide this type of support and
technical assistance. Furthermore, as the program launches in early
2023 it is being coordinated with other federal place-based technical
assistance programs to maximize impact especially for smaller under-
resourced communities. This includes improved collaboration between
federal field and regional staff to support communities in identifying
and preparing to apply for Federal funding as part of a Thriving
Communities network.
In our outreach to small and disadvantaged communities in urban,
suburban, rural, and Tribal areas, we hear repeatedly the challenges
these communities face in meeting federal match requirements,
developing federal grant applications, and in completing multiple
applications for the same project that may be eligible for more than
one discretionary grant program. Specifically, these small and
disadvantaged communities often cannot find adequate funding to meet
the statutory match requirements for discretionary grant programs,
which typically require 10-20 percent match. Because of this
significant financial challenge, they may be unable to apply for DOT
discretionary grants, despite having a legitimate transportation need.
Considering these challenges, DOT has developed resources to help
communities navigate non-federal match requirements and the grant
process. However, given the myriad of statutory inconsistencies across
programs, communities still find it difficult to navigate the local
match requirement while also ensuring that the specific program to
which they are applying allows their type of matching funds.
Furthermore, despite the Department's efforts to try and consolidate
programs, where possible, into a single Notice of Funding Opportunity
(NOFO) (as with the Multimodal Projects Discretionary Grant program),
the distinctions between programs still make this a challenge.

Question 3. Mr. Secretary, as you know, the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act includes a competitive grant program to
reconnect communities. These highways often plunged through Black
communities and communities of color. In fact, several neighborhoods in
Louisiana's Second Congressional District, including New Orleans' Treme
neighborhood are included in that number and would directly benefit
from this grant. The historic Treme neighborhood, which was
dramatically bisected by I-10 in the 1960's was once a thriving
predominantly Black business corridor. What are you and the Department
doing to engage communities, especially minority and historically
disadvantaged communities that were disconnected by highways, to ensure
that their desires and input are at the forefront of righting this
wrong and reconnecting these communities?
Answer. This is top of mind for DOT. DOT's implementation of the
Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) Program includes several
provisions to ensure that historically disadvantaged communities have a
leading role in shaping projects that would be carried out in their
communities, as specified in the NOFO: ``The primary goal of the RCP
Program is to reconnect communities harmed by transportation
infrastructure, through community-supported planning activities and
capital construction projects that are championed by those
communities''. DOT will evaluate all applications with RCP Program's
four merit criteria, each of which ensure that the desire and input of
disadvantaged communities are placed at the forefront.
With Merit Criterion #1: Equity, Environmental Justice,
and Community Engagement--DOT will rate applications for the existence
of harmful policies, existing disparities, environmental burdens, needs
of the surrounding community, with special consideration for those most
affected by the highway or other transportation facility, meaningful
engagement of hard-to-access community members, and robust mitigation
planning for any adverse impacts.
With Merit Criterion #2: Mobility and Community
Connectivity--DOT will rate applications on demonstration of existing
barriers to access, mobility, and economic development, and whether the
proposal connects community members, including those with disabilities,
to daily destinations through affordable transportation options.
With Merit Criterion #3: Community-based Stewardship,
Management, and Partnerships, DOT will evaluate whether the applicant
takes a community-centered approach that meaningfully redresses
inequities and benefits economically disadvantaged communities, with
partnerships with entities with ties to communities adjacent to the
highway or other transportation facility, and use of a community
advisory group or board.
Finally, with Merit Criterion #4: Equitable Development
and Shared Prosperity--DOT will rate applications on demonstration of
comprehensive community vision planning that redresses inequities and
barriers to opportunity through community restoration and anti-
displacement strategies, creative place-making celebrating local
history, local inclusive economic development and entrepreneurship of
disadvantaged businesses, and the adoption of local hiring preferences.

Furthermore, in 2023, we will be using up to $30 million in
technical assistance funds provided through the Reconnecting
Communities Pilot Program to stand up a learning institute that will
include engagement with disadvantaged communities over the next five
years to enhance their capacity to plan and deliver solutions that
reconnect communities. This institute will also serve as a two-way
channel to provide information back to DOT senior officials on what
challenges are being encountered by communities.

Question 4. Mr. Secretary, one of the most exciting projects in my
district and the state of Louisiana is the high speed rail that would
connect Baton Rouge and New Orleans. Do you have an update on when this
project will be completed or how the project is going?
Answer. The Department is excited by the potential of the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's (BIL) historic investment to help
advance passenger rail projects. The state of Louisiana's leadership
should be commended on their dedication to support and engage in
projects of this nature.
In April 2022, FRA, along with Amtrak and various state of
Louisiana officials, participated in Canadian Pacific's (CP) inspection
trip of KCS' line between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. Recently, DOT
announced FY 2022 RAISE program award selections. DOT selected the City
of Gonzales, LA's application, which was submitted in partnership with
the City of Baton Rouge, LA, for a $20 million award for the `Downtown
Baton Rouge and Gonzales Train Stations Project'. Additionally, an FRA
CRISI grant to the Southern Rail Commission will fund the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental review for the corridor
and stations.

Question 5. Resilience of our transportation assets to worsening
climate change is a clear priority in the IIJA. And we now have both
competitive and formula PROTECT programs to invest in resiliency-
enhancing projects. What is your Department doing to assess the costs
and consequences of climate change for our transportation system? And
will you be issuing guidance and providing technical assistance to
state agencies as they develop plans and programs for climate
resilience including as part of their PROTECT program investments?
Answer. The new Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative,
Efficient, and Cost-saving Transportation (PROTECT) program,
established by BIL, provides formula and discretionary grant funding
for resilience improvements. In July 2022, FHWA announced new guidance
and $7.3 billion in Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative,
Efficient, and Cost-Saving Transportation (PROTECT) formula funding to
help states and communities better prepare for and respond to extreme
weather events like wildfires, flooding, and extreme heat. The new
PROTECT formula program funding is available to states over five years
to make transportation infrastructure more resilient to future weather
events and other natural disasters by focusing on resilience planning,
making resilience improvements to existing transportation assets and
evacuation routes, and addressing at-risk highway infrastructure.
PROTECT builds on other DOT actions to address the climate crisis that
support the Biden Administration's whole-of-government approach to
reducing greenhouse gas pollution by 2030.
The Department is working with states and cities to ensure they
understand the risks of climate change and are planning for future
climate impacts and the long-term resilience of their communities. For
example, we have helped our state and local partners explore the best
ways to conduct vulnerability assessments. In particular, the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed and refined an adaptation
framework to help agencies identify vulnerabilities and solutions. The
framework provides information on a range of applications, from small
qualitative studies to complex, quantitatively driven analyses, and
from the State or regional systems level analysis down to corridor- or
project-specific analyses. In addition, FHWA has developed and
continues to refine a range of procedures, tools, and guidance
documents to help transportation agencies address climate change when
designing roads, bridges, culverts, and drainage infrastructure. These
resources include:
Highways in the River Environment: Floodplains, Extreme
Events, Risk, and Resilience (Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 17,
2nd Edition). This guidance document presents detailed technical
guidance and methods for assessing the vulnerability of transportation
infrastructure to extreme flood events in riverine environments. It
includes information about downscaling climate data for use in
hydraulic engineering.
Highways in the Coastal Environment (Hydraulic
Engineering Circular No. 25, 3rd Edition). This document presents tools
for the planning, design, and operation of highways in the coastal
environment, focusing on roads near the coast that are influenced by
coastal tides and waves constantly, or occasionally during storms. A
primary goal is the integration of coastal engineering principles and
practices in the planning and design of these roads and bridges to make
them more resilient.
Nature-Based Solutions for Coastal Highway Resilience: An
Implementation Guide. This document summarizes the current literature
on the benefits and costs of nature-based solutions. From there it
follows the steps in the transportation project delivery process,
providing information on planning, site assessment, design, permitting,
construction, monitoring, maintenance, and adaptive management of
nature-based solutions in the transportation context.