[Senate Hearing 117-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


 
RETHINKING DISASTER RECOVERY AND RESILIENCY: PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND 
                    ACCELERATING ASSISTANCE, PART I

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:00 a.m. in room SD-192, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Brian Schatz (chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senators Schatz, Reed, Coons, Murphy, Van Hollen, 
Collins, Boozman, Capito, Hoeven, and Braun.

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

STATEMENT OF HON. POLLY TROTTENBERG, DEPUTY SECRETARY


               opening statement of senator brian schatz


    Senator Schatz. Good morning. I am honored to kick off our 
first oversight hearing as the chairman of the Transportation, 
Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee.
    I want to thank Ranking Member Collins who has served as 
chairman of this important subcommittee for many years with 
Jack Reed. Senator Collins, there is literally no one in the 
United States Senate, I would be more pleased to work with, who 
has got a longer and more substantial track record of 
bipartisan accomplishment on the Appropriations Committee, but 
really throughout the Senate. So it is going to be a pleasure 
to work with you.
    This hearing is the first of two to examine how departments 
under our jurisdiction manage disaster recovery programs, and 
how we can make our communities more resilient to the effects 
of climate change. Today's focus is on the Department of 
Transportation.
    For transportation, building back is step one in the 
disaster recovery. We need to build back better to be more 
resilient. This saves money in the long term, and allows for a 
quicker recovery in the short term. We need to move beyond 
quick fixes and push state transportation Departments to 
include resiliency in all aspects of transportation 
infrastructure, including their planning, design, materials and 
engineering.
    We need to investments in resiliency to help communities 
adapt to the effects of climate change. Every day that we fail 
to act we become more vulnerable. We see the impacts of climate 
change everywhere, with increased flooding, and repeated major 
disaster events every year, coastal communities and critical 
roadways are quite literally being reclaimed by the ocean 
itself.
    DOT has started to work on this through the Federal 
Highways Administration (FHWA), which now allows states to 
include resiliency features, such as shoreline stabilization, 
and larger culverts when building back from a disaster. But the 
Department still needs to provide consistent guidance on the 
approval process and treat resiliency as a core feature and not 
as an added luxury.
    The Department should also take action to encourage state 
and local transportation agencies to think more broadly about 
resiliency. It is not just about roadways, it is also about 
ports, airports, railways that are all essential to our 
economy. These assets need to be able to recover quickly from 
extreme weather events and adapt to sea level rise.
    The recent events of the Colonial Pipeline also highlight 
the need to incorporate cybersecurity into our resiliency 
framework. While DHS has jurisdiction over cybersecurity and 
the security of critical infrastructure, there is no Federal 
agency that regulates mandatory cybersecurity standards for our 
Nation's pipelines. The administration is taking an aggressive 
and whole-of-government approach to this issue.
    Deputy Secretary Trottenberg, I look forward to your 
comments on how DOT is supporting this effort.
    I am glad to see the administration's American Jobs Plan 
includes dedicated funding for infrastructure resiliency 
programs, specifically it includes $8 billion for the 
Department of Transportation, including $3 billion for the 
National Resilient Communities challenge, and $5 billion for 
PROTECT grants. I want to highlight that PROTECT grants were 
part of the Senate Reauthorization Bill marked up by EPW on a 
unanimous vote last Congress, so that we know that there is 
broad bipartisan support for dedicated funding for resiliency. 
But $8 billion is not nearly enough, and this funding needs to 
be available to all modes.
    In addition to the American Jobs Plan proposal, I am glad 
to see the administration incorporating resiliency into its 
competitive grant process. The Department should provide more 
technical assistance to state and local governments, and update 
policy guidance to incorporate resiliency into the day-to-day 
work of transportation planners and engineers. This is 
important because, as we know, these changes must come from the 
local level, and not just Washington, DC.
    With that, I would like to turn it over to our ranking 
member, Senator Collins.


                 statement of senator susan m. collins


    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin my remarks 
today by congratulating you on assuming the chairmanship of 
this important subcommittee. I am sure that you will enjoy it 
and be a great leader as we work together. I also want to pay 
tribute to Senator Reed with whom I have worked. We sort of 
went back and forth as chairman and ranking member for a long 
time. And he did a great job, and we always worked together in 
a bipartisan way, and I know that you, Senator Schatz, and I 
will do so as well.
    I also want to thank you for holding an extraordinarily 
timely hearing on disaster recovery programs and transportation 
resiliency.
    I welcome each of our witnesses who are joining us today. 
And I am particularly pleased to welcome Dr. Habib Dagher, who 
joins us from the University of Maine.
    Today's discussion regarding disaster recovery and 
transportation resiliency is, as you noted, particularly timely 
given the devastating cyberattack on a major pipeline, 
demonstrates the need for our critical infrastructure to be 
hardened against such attacks, and for mandatory reporting of 
attacks on our critical infrastructure.
    The administration recently released its infrastructure 
plan; a more than $4 trillion proposal that goes far beyond the 
traditional definition of infrastructure, and prioritize these 
expensive subsidies for electric vehicles over at the repair 
and replacement of roads, bridges, highways, airports, and 
seaports, and includes social programs not traditionally 
considered infrastructure.
    As everyone is aware, there are some Republicans who have 
also proposed an infrastructure package that would target core 
transportation infrastructure, as well as water systems and 
broadband expansion.
    For my part, I support a robust infrastructure investment 
in this country, and I have worked hard with the former 
chairman of this subcommittee to increase funding for many 
critical programs to address our country's physical and digital 
infrastructure needs.
    As Senator Schatz and I know, the infrastructure needs of 
Hawaii are quite different from those in the State of Maine, 
but in many ways, I think that is important because it helps us 
recognize that states have different needs, and that our 
programs need to be flexible enough to recognize that.
    As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the 
former chair of the Homeland Security Committee quite some time 
ago, I have long had an interest in cybersecurity for our 
critical infrastructure, and I look forward to pursuing that 
issue. In fact, I am working with Senators Warner and Rubio on 
a cybersecurity bill that we will introduce shortly.
    As a member of the Bipartisan Senate Climate Solutions 
Caucus, I have worked with many of my colleagues across the 
aisle to build consensus for programs that can help combat 
climate change while supporting our infrastructure. Today, we 
will learn more better country's needs in terms of disaster 
response, transportation resiliency, and improving our 
infrastructure through research development, construction 
materials, building techniques, and more.
    Whether it is for disaster recovery, infrastructure 
longevity, or sustainability, research and investment in new 
techniques and materials has the potential to extend the life 
of critical public works to make them more resilient.
    Recently, I introduced a bill that focuses on innovative 
materials, it is called the IMAGINE Act, with Senator 
Whitehouse. Our bill would fund research into new materials, 
and building techniques, and spur Federal investment in bridge 
and water infrastructure projects that use innovative materials 
and techniques, prioritizing coastal and rural projects.
    This would help translate research into practice, an area 
where the University of Maine has been a national leader. I 
will talk more about Dr. Habib Dagher's work when I introduce 
him later, but let me say that the University of Maine's 
Advanced Structures and Composite Center has grown from 4 to 
260 personnel, and is housed in a 100,000-square-foot 
laboratory, making it the largest university-based research 
center in the State of Maine. Among other achievements that 
composite centers have developed technologies to build the 
longest composite materials highway bridge in the country.
    I am pleased to say it happens to be located in the State 
of Maine, and was completed in cooperation with Maine's 
Department of Transportation.
    Dr. Dagher is also leading the Transportation 
Infrastructure Durability Center at the university, which was 
recently established with the U.S. Department of Transportation 
funding under a highly competitive grant program. It brings 
together the expertise of New England State DOTs, and six 
universities in developing more sustainable materials and 
construction methods. The University of Maine is also working 
with one of our national labs.
    I look forward to hearing from all of our distinguished 
witnesses, and working with them, as well as the chairman and 
other members of this committee to advance our shared 
bipartisan priorities.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you, Senator Collins.
    I now want to turn to our panel of witnesses, and welcome 
all of you to the subcommittee. First, we have the Honorable 
Polly Trottenberg, deputy secretary of the Department of 
Transportation. Congratulations on your confirmation. I am 
honored that your first congressional hearing will be before 
this subcommittee.
    Next, we will have Ms. Elizabeth Repko, acting director of 
the Physical Infrastructure Team at the GAO.
    From Hawaii, up at 4:00 a.m., we have my friend, Mr. Ed 
Sniffen. Ed is the deputy director for Highways at Hawaii DOT. 
Mr. Sniffen is also the chair of the AASHTO Committee on 
Transportation System Security and Resiliency. Thank you so 
much for being up early to share your experience with us, Ed.
    And finally, we have Dr. Habib Dagher, who is the executive 
director of the Advanced Structures and Composite Center, as 
well as the founder of the Transportation Infrastructure 
Durability Center. Mr. Dagher, thank you for joining us here 
today to share your expertise.
    Deputy Secretary Trottenberg, you may proceed with your 
testimony.


              summary statement of hon. polly trottenberg


    Ms. Trottenberg. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Schatz, 
Ranking Member Collins, and members of the committee. Thank you 
for the opportunity to testify today about the Department of 
Transportation's policies and approaches to enhance 
infrastructure resilience, and how the President's American 
Jobs Plan will help us create stronger, more resilient 
transportation systems.
    Today, we will discuss one of the most critical 
infrastructure risks, climate change, as well as the growing 
challenge of cybersecurity in light of the recent Colonial 
Pipeline cyberattack. This administration recognizes that 
climate change is here and demands a national response, 
wildfires, droughts, floods, and other high-impact weather 
events have become more and more common. They have destroyed 
communities, damaged infrastructure and claimed lives.
    And the cost has been staggering. In 2020 alone the U.S. 
suffered 22 weather disasters that each cost at least a billion 
dollars in damages. When Superstorm Sandy charged up the 
Atlantic Coast in the fall of 2012, it brought a record-setting 
storm surge that claimed lives, destroyed homes and businesses, 
left millions without power, and cost tens of billions.
    We have seen similar destruction caused by Hurricane Harvey 
in 2017, the California wildfires in 2020, and the winter ice 
storm in Texas just a few months ago, along with many other 
events. We are still rebuilding and learning from these 
disasters, but they have taught us that we must proactively 
incorporate resilience into our infrastructure, rather than 
turn to Federal emergency relief after the damage is done.
    And clearly we must consider cybersecurity as another 
dimension of resiliency. While we are pleased that the Colonial 
Pipeline was back online last night, the cyberattack and 
resulting shutdown have had an effect on the regional fuel 
supply. The President has directed the entire administration to 
bring all resources to bear in addressing the situation, 
working in concert with our sister agencies, the extraordinary 
team at DOT, across all the modes, work to facilitate the 
transport of fuel and the reopening of the pipeline.
    The Colonial Pipeline incident underscores that in addition 
to protecting critical infrastructure from extreme weather 
events, we must also take--must also make cybersecurity a core 
priority.
    But for today's hearing, I will focus primarily on actions 
we are taking in DOT to address climate change and resiliency, 
and how the American Jobs Plan can help us do even more. At DOT 
we are supporting the President's aggressive goal of net-zero 
emissions by 2050, by investing in and accelerating a shift to 
clean transportation, including clean vehicles, airplanes, 
ships, and transit, as well as making walking and biking safer 
and easier.
    Furthermore, we have developed four key resiliency 
strategies. First, build stronger or better, or retrofit 
existing infrastructure incorporating nature-based strategies 
wherever possible. Second, add redundancy and efficiency to the 
transportation network by building new links, multimodal hubs, 
or routes. Three, relocate transportation assets to less 
vulnerable locations; and lastly, operational strategies to 
help address disruptions.
    In addition, Federal Highways and the Federal Transit 
Administration, both offer emergency relief programs and work 
closely with your states and transit agents to get aid on the 
ground quickly. We are also partnering with state, local, and 
tribal agencies to evaluate the climate vulnerabilities of 
their transportation assets, and helping them incorporate 
resiliency into their planning.
    And the President's American Jobs Plan is a chance to 
jumpstart efforts to make transformational investments in 
projects and approaches that build resilience. One highlight of 
the plan is a $50 billion investment in infrastructure 
resilience across a range of sectors, including transportation.
    The plan also allocates 115 billion for a ``fix it right'' 
approach to repairing our roads and bridges, including 20 
billion to improve road safety for all users. The plan will 
decrease greenhouse gas emissions by investing 85 billion in 
transit, and 80 billion in rail, as well as 174 billion to 
support the adoption of electric vehicles. And it calls for 25 
billion for airports, and 17 billion for inland waterways and 
ports.
    The plan will also improve equity by ensuring that at least 
40 percent of the benefits of climate investments flow to 
underserved communities who bear the disproportionate effects 
of transportation pollution. We look forward to working with 
you to make sure that all the American Jobs Plan investments 
meet local community needs.
    The AJP also makes financial sense, since the benefits of 
sound resilience investments can far outweigh the cost. In 2020 
the National Institute of Building Sciences found that for 
every dollar of Federal mitigation grant spent to avoid 
disasters before they happen, we save six dollars. Investing in 
a more sustainable, equitable transportation system will create 
jobs and new American industries, and will help us tackle 
climate change, improve safety, and quality of life.
    But addressing resilience requires more than money. It 
requires an interdisciplinary effort and a partnership with you 
and Congress, with state, local, and tribal leaders, with 
industry, with scientists and researchers, and with local 
communities.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I am happy 
to answer your questions.
    [The statement follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Hon. Polly Trottenberg
    Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am eager 
to speak with you about how the Department of Transportation's policies 
and approaches enhance infrastructure resilience and how the 
President's American Jobs Plan will help us create stronger, more 
resilient transportation infrastructure.
    The Biden-Harris Administration recognizes that climate change is 
here and demands a national response. Wildfires, droughts, floods, and 
other high-impact weather events have become more and more common. They 
have destroyed communities, damaged infrastructure, and claimed lives. 
And the cost has been staggering. In 2020 alone, the U.S. suffered 22 
high-impact weather disasters that each cost at least $1 billion in 
damages.
    Meanwhile, rising sea levels are dramatically eroding our 
coastlines in many places, putting communities and vital infrastructure 
at risk. Our seaports and coastal airports face storm surges, chronic 
flooding, and the risk of permanent inundation. Crucial transportation 
hubs in states like Hawaii and Louisiana are at severe risk.
    When Superstorm Sandy charged up the Atlantic Coast in the fall of 
2012, it brought a record-setting storm surge that pummeled coastal 
communities large and small. Sandy destroyed homes and businesses, left 
millions without power, and cost our nation tens of billions.
    When I became the Commissioner of the New York City Department of 
Transportation in 2014, I inherited a recovery still very much in 
process and witnessed the devastation wrought by a storm of that size 
and power, and the enormous challenges of building back critical 
infrastructure in a dense urban environment that can withstand future 
weather and climate disasters.
    We have seen similar destruction caused by Hurricane Harvey in 
2017, the California wildfires in 2020, the winter ice storm in Texas 
just a few months ago, and the January collapse of Highway 1 in Big 
Sur, California, caused by heavy rain and storm debris, along with 
many, many more events. We are still rebuilding and learning from those 
disasters. They have taught us that if we want to protect the public, 
prevent damage and disruption, and save taxpayer dollars, we must 
proactively incorporate resilience into our transportation 
infrastructure, rather than turn to federal emergency relief funds for 
repairs after the damage has already been done.
    Today, I would like to talk to you about the actions we are taking 
at DOT on climate change and resilience to protect our nation's 
infrastructure, and how the American Jobs Plan can help us do even 
more.
    At DOT, we are supporting the President's aggressive goal of net- 
zero emissions by 2050 by investing in and accelerating a shift to 
clean transportation, including clean transit, trains, airplanes, 
ships, and vehicles, as well as making walking and biking safer and 
easier. Furthermore, we have developed four key strategies to make our 
infrastructure more resilient.

  1) We can build stronger or better, or retrofit existing 
        infrastructure to prepare for and adapt to changes in the 
        climate, incorporating nature-based strategies that can help 
        protect transportation infrastructure--such as constructed 
        marshes to protect coastal highways--wherever possible.

  2) We can add redundancy and efficiency to the transportation network 
        by building new links, multimodal hubs, or routes.

  3) We can relocate transportation assets to less vulnerable, but 
        still well-connected, locations.

  4) And, lastly, we can use more intensive maintenance or operational 
        strategies to help address disruptions.

    In addition, the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit 
Administration both offer emergency relief programs that are a valuable 
tool for communities. These programs have provided over $15 billion for 
highways since 2005 and $11 billion for transit since 2013 to rebuild 
transportation assets following a declared disaster. The Department has 
worked closely with your states and transit agencies to get resources 
and aid on the ground quickly. We encourage agencies to take advantage 
of every opportunity to use these funds to build back better and 
stronger infrastructure. We recognize how important these programs are 
for many of you here, and we want to make sure that we are effectively 
collaborating with you.
    But we also want to proactively avoid damage by building resilient 
infrastructure. We are partnering with State, local, and Tribal 
agencies to evaluate the climate vulnerabilities of their 
transportation assets. We are piloting tools and metrics for 
resilience, like DOT's ``Resilience and Disaster Recovery Tool Suite,'' 
which will help state and local agencies incorporate resilience into 
their planning. And we are working with our partners to tailor 
resilience options to each transportation facility.
    However, disaster recovery and resilience efforts will require more 
resources as weather and climate disasters become ever more frequent. 
The President's American Jobs Plan is a chance to jump-start our 
efforts to make transformational investments in projects and approaches 
that build resilience. One highlight of the plan is a $50 billion 
investment in infrastructure resilience across a range of sectors, 
including transportation. We look forward to working with you to make 
sure that these investments meet community needs.
    The Plan also allocates $115 billion for a ``fix it right'' 
approach to repairing our highways, bridges, and main streets. The Plan 
will decrease vehicle-produced greenhouse gas emissions by investing 
$85 billion in transit and $80 billion in rail, as well as $174 billion 
to support the nationwide adoption of electric vehicles. It calls for 
$25 billion for our airports, including funding for the Airport 
Improvement Program and upgrades to FAA assets, and $17 billion for 
inland waterways and ports. Additionally, the plan provides $20 billion 
to improve road safety for all users, including increases to existing 
safety programs and a new Safe Streets for All program to fund state 
and local ``vision zero'' plans and other improvements to reduce 
crashes and fatalities, especially for cyclists and pedestrians.
    Furthermore, the Plan will improve equity by ensuring that at least 
40% of the benefits of climate investments flow to underserved 
communities, who bear disproportionate impacts of transportation 
pollution and are more vulnerable to negative effects of climate 
change.
    In totality, we believe the American Jobs Plan could be a 
transformational investment in making the U.S. transportation system 
more resilient and environmentally sustainable.
    The AJP also makes financial sense. Investing in infrastructure 
that can't withstand climate change is just throwing good money after 
bad. And research indicates that the financial benefits of resilience 
far outweigh the costs. The National Institute of Building Sciences 
found that for every dollar of federal mitigation grants we spend to 
avoid disasters before they happen, we save six dollars.
    Investing in a more sustainable, equitable transportation system 
will create jobs and new American industries and will help us tackle 
climate change, improve safety, and increase quality of life, 
especially for those most negatively impacted over the past decades. 
But addressing resilience requires more than money. It requires an 
interdisciplinary effort to address challenges in science, politics, 
and financing. To succeed, we need to partner with you in Congress; 
with state, local, and tribal transportation leaders; with industry; 
with scientists and researchers; and with local communities.
    I look forward to working with members of the Committee to make 
that possible. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. I 
am happy to answer your questions.

    Senator Schatz. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Repko.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH REPKO, ACTING DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL 
            INFRASTRUCTURE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 
            OFFICE
    Ms. Repko. Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Collins, and 
members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to 
discuss how GAO's past and ongoing work can help inform options 
to improve the climate resilience of our transportation 
infrastructure.
    The United States invests billions of dollars annually into 
the Nation's surface transportation system, which is critical 
to the economy and affects the lives of most Americans. 
However, according to the National Climate Assessment changes 
in the climate pose a risk to the safety, efficiency, and 
reliability of that system. Further, the rising number of 
natural disasters and increasing reliance on Federal assistance 
by those in affected communities is a key source of Federal 
fiscal exposure.
    Since 2005, Federal funding for disaster assistance has 
totaled at least $0.5 trillion, and these costs are projected 
to increase as extreme weather events become more frequent and 
intense due to climate change. In recognition of this fiscal 
exposure, GAO has included better managing climate change risks 
in its high risk list since 2013. As such, we have recommended 
enhancing resilience, which includes our ability to plan for, 
adapt to, and recover from adverse events.
    Resilience investments upfront can reduce the need for more 
costly steps in the future. This is indeed a situation in which 
an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. My statement 
today focuses on steps the Federal government could take to 
improve climate resilience in the Nation's transportation 
infrastructure. Including, first, following the principles of 
GAO's Disaster Resilience Framework, and second, considering 
options specific to the Federal Aid Highway Program.
    First, GAO issued its Disaster Resilience Framework in 
October 2019. The framework is organized around three guiding 
principles, information, integration, and incentives. For 
instance, we have found that authoritative and accurate 
information on disaster risks can help guide decisions that 
promote resilience. This is particularly relevant in the area 
of infrastructure or information on climate trends, such as 
likely increases in precipitation or temperature may be 
critical to making long-term investments.
    However, the Federal government's climate data are 
fragmented and no single source of authoritative information 
exists. We have recommended ways to address this issue such as 
by creating a national climate information system. As of 
December 2020 actions have not been taken to address these 
recommendations.
    Similarly, we have found that Federal incentives can play a 
key role in motivating climate resilience efforts. Most of the 
Nation's infrastructure is owned and operated by non-Federal 
actors who face competing priorities when planning projects, 
the government can help encourage these actors to incorporate 
resilience, to incentivizing them to use design standards based 
on the best available disaster information.
    As such, we have recommended that the Federal government 
work to provide better climate information to organizations 
that set design standards, while some action has been taken on 
this recommendation, as of April 2021 agencies have not taken 
sufficient action to address it.
    Second, GAO's ongoing work offers preliminary insights on 
options to build greater resilience into the Federal-aid 
highway program. These options include integrating resilience 
into FHWA's policy guidance and planning requirements. Other 
options include establishing formulas to meet climate-related 
goals, or the use of discretionary grant programs to assist 
particularly vulnerable roads or populations.
    Some of these options are similar to those that GAO has 
recommended in our previous work. And others include actions 
that FHWA may undertake on its own, or those that may require 
congressional action. Creating the appropriate mix of options 
to enhance the climate resilience of federally-funded roads is 
not easy. It is a policy choice that requires complex trade-off 
decisions. However, resilience offers an opportunity to help 
ensure that federally-funded roads can withstand or more easily 
recover from disasters. Seizing this opportunity can better 
protect the billions we invest annually in highway 
infrastructure, while also helping reduce our future fiscal 
exposure.
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Collins, and members of the 
subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be 
pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
    [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Ms. Elizabeth Repko
    Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the 
Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our past and 
ongoing work on climate resilience and transportation infrastructure. 
The nation's surface transportation system-including highways, transit, 
and rail systems that move both people and freight-is critical to the 
economy and affects the daily lives of most Americans. However, changes 
in the climate pose a risk to the safety, efficiency, and reliability 
of the U.S. transportation system, according to the 2018 Fourth 
National Climate Assessment.\1\ This assessment states that a changing 
climate undermines the transportation system's ability to perform 
reliably, safely, and efficiently. This report notes that heavy 
precipitation, river and coastal flooding, heat, and changes in average 
precipitation and temperature impact individual assets across all modes 
of transportation. These impacts threaten the performance of the entire 
network, with critical ramifications for safety, environmental 
sustainability, economic vitality and mobility, congestion, and system 
reliability, particularly for vulnerable populations and urban 
infrastructure according to the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Global Change Research Act of 1990, Pub.L. No. 101-606, 
Sec. 103, 104 Stat. 3096, 3098, directed the President to establish the 
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). USGCRP coordinates and 
integrates the activities of 13 federal agencies that research changes 
in the global environment and their implications for society. USGCRP 
most recently released a National Climate Assessment in 2018. See 
USGCRP, Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth 
National Climate Assessment, vol. 2 (Washington, D.C.: 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The rising number of natural disasters and increasing reliance on 
federal assistance by those in affected communities is a key source of 
federal fiscal exposure. As we stated in our report on the nation's 
fiscal health in March of 2021, since 2005, federal funding for 
disaster assistance has totaled at least $524 billion.\2\ This funding 
which consists of obligations for disaster assistance from 2005 through 
2014 totaling about $278 billion \3\ and select appropriations for 
disaster assistance from 2015 to 2020 totaling $246 billion.\4\ 
Disaster costs to the federal government are projected to increase as 
certain extreme weather events become more frequent and intense due to 
climate change, as observed and projected by the U.S. Global Change 
Research Program and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 
and Medicine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ GAO, The Nation's Fiscal Health: After Pandemic Recovery, Focus 
Needed on Achieving Long-Term Fiscal Sustainability, GAO-21-275SP 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 23, 2021).
    \3\ See GAO, Federal Disaster Assistance: Federal Departments and 
Agencies Obligated at Least $277.6 Billion during Fiscal Years 2005 
through 2014, GAO-16-797 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 2016).
    \4\ This total also includes $188 billion in select supplemental 
appropriations to federal agencies for disaster assistance and 
approximately $58 billion in annual appropriations to the Disaster 
Relief Fund for fiscal years 2015 through 2020. It does not include 
other annual appropriations to federal agencies for disaster 
assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since 2013, in recognition of the federal government's significant 
stake in managing climate-related disaster impacts, GAO has included 
Limiting the Federal Government's Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing 
Climate Change Risks in its High-Risk List.\5\ We and others have 
recommended enhancing resilience to help limit the federal government's 
fiscal exposure to climate change because it can reduce the need for 
far more costly steps in the future.\6\ Enhancing climate-related 
resilience means taking actions to reduce potential future losses by 
planning and preparing for potential climate hazards, such as extreme 
rainfall, sea level rise, and drought.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ We added Limiting the Federal Government's Fiscal Exposure by 
Better Managing Climate Change Risks to GAO's High-Risk List in 2013. 
The High-Risk List identifies federal program areas that are at high 
risk of vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement or 
most in need of transformation. See GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, 
GAO-13-283 (Washington, D.C.: February 2013) and High-Risk Series: 
Dedicated Leadership Needed to Address Limited Progress in Most High-
Risk Areas, GAO-21-119SP (Washington, D.C.: March 2021).
    \6\ For example, see, GAO, Climate Change: Opportunities to Reduce 
Federal Fiscal Exposure, GAO-19-625T (Washington, D.C.: June 2019); 
Climate Change: Selected Governments Have Approached Adaptation through 
Laws and Long-Term Plans, GAO-16-454 (Washington, D.C.: May 2016); and 
National Research Council of the National Academies, America's Climate 
Choices: Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change, Adapting 
to the Impacts of Climate Change (Washington, D.C.: 2010).
    \7\ The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 
defines resilience as the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, 
recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events. We 
reported in May 2016 that two related sets of actions can enhance 
climate resilience by reducing risk. These are climate change 
adaptation and pre-disaster hazard mitigation. In general, the term 
``adaptation'' is used by climate change professionals, and ``pre-
disaster hazard mitigation'' is employed by the emergency management 
community, often to speak about the same thing: becoming better 
prepared for climate change impacts. Adaptation is defined as 
adjustments to natural or human systems in response to actual or 
expected climate change. Pre-disaster hazard mitigation refers to 
actions taken to reduce the loss of life and property by lessening the 
impacts of adverse events. It applies to all hazards, including 
terrorism and natural hazards such as health pandemics or weather-
related disasters. In this report, we use the term ``climate 
resilience'' for consistency and to encompass both sets of actions as 
they relate to addressing climate risks. GAO, Climate Resilience: A 
Strategic Investment Approach for High-Priority Projects Could Help 
Target Federal Resources, GAO-20-127 (Washington, D.C.: October 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2020, Congress authorized for fiscal year 2021 about $43.4 
billion of formula funding for the federal-aid highway program through 
which U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA) provides the funding to the states for highway 
and bridge planning, maintenance, and construction activities for 
approximately 110,000 active federally funded projects.\8\ FHWA 
annually distributes this funding to the states by statutory formula. 
FHWA also administers a variety of discretionary grant programs, 
through which it provides highway funding to grant applicants based on 
the eligibility and selection criteria specific to each program. FHWA 
is also authorized through its Emergency Relief Program to provide up 
to $100 million annually to states to repair or reconstruct roads 
seriously damaged by natural disasters or a catastrophic failure from 
any external cause. Additional emergency relief funding can be made 
available by Congress as needed through supplemental appropriation 
acts.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act, 
Pub. L. No. 116-159, div. B, tit. I, Sec. 1101, 134 Stat. 709, 725 
(2020). The ``federal-aid highway program'' is an umbrella term for a 
collection of FHWA-administered formula and nonformula grant programs. 
Formula grant programs account for the majority of the total funding 
authorized for the federal-aid highway program.
    \9\ 23 U.S.C. Sec. 125. See also 23 C.F.R. Sec. 668.111(c). As 
described in FHWA's Emergency Relief Manual, to be considered for 
Emergency Relief funding either the President must make a major 
disaster declaration under the Stafford Act or the governor of the 
state must issue an emergency or disaster proclamation and FHWA must 
concur with that declaration.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In January 27, 2021, the President issued Executive Order 14008 on 
Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. This order states that 
it is policy of the administration to deploy the full capacity of 
federal agencies to, among other things, combat climate change and 
implement a government-wide approach that increases resilience to the 
impacts of climate change.\10\ The order directs agencies to submit and 
annually update climate action plans that describe steps the agency can 
take with regard to its facilities and operations to bolster adaptation 
and increase resilience to the impacts of climate change, and to make 
those action plans publicly available. The order's full impact will not 
be known for some time and its success will depend on sustained agency 
attention. As part of a government-wide effort, this order specifically 
calls on the Secretary of Transportation to, among other duties, 
prioritize action on climate change in policy-making and budget 
processes, in contracting and procurement, and in engagement with 
state, local, tribal, and territorial governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ 86 Fed. Reg. 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My statement today discusses (1) GAO's disaster resilience 
framework for identifying opportunities to enhance the climate 
resilience of transportation infrastructure; and (2) preliminary 
observations on actions taken and options to further enhance climate 
resilience of federally funded roads. In addition to describing GAO's 
disaster resilience framework for identifying opportunities to promote 
transportation and infrastructure resilience to climate risks, we 
reviewed prior GAO reports from 2014 through 2019 cited throughout the 
statement. Information on our objectives, scope, and methodology for 
that work can be found in the issued reports. As part of our on-going 
work in this area, we reviewed relevant documents, laws, and 
regulations, and interviewed FHWA officials to describe how FHWA tools 
have been used to support climate resilience in the federal-aid highway 
program.\11\ In addition, as part of our on-going work, we reviewed 
relevant literature and interviewed knowledgeable stakeholders to 
identify options to further enhance climate resilience in FHWA's 
federal-aid highway program. Specifically, through a comprehensive 
literature search, we found 53 relevant reports and pieces of 
legislation to review for options to further enhance the resilience of 
federally funded roads. We then conducted 19 interviews with 
knowledgeable stakeholders that included representatives from the 
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 
officials from several state departments of transportation, former U.S. 
Department of Transportation officials, and stakeholders from academic 
institutions, research organizations, think tanks, and consultancies. 
We used the results of the literature search to identify stakeholders 
with knowledge of both climate resilience and federal funding for 
roads. When identifying knowledgeable stakeholders, we primarily 
considered type of expertise, relevance of published work, and 
referrals from other stakeholders as criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ We have on-going work examining FHWA actions and potential 
options to enhance the climate resilience of federally funded roads. 
FHWA officials reviewed an early draft of the report developed as part 
of this on-going work and provided comments, which we have incorporated 
into this testimony. We anticipate that we will issue a report on the 
results of our ongoing work in summer 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We conducted the work on which this statement is based in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
gao's disaster resilience framework identifies opportunities to enhance 
        the climate resilience of transportation infrastructure
    We have previously reported that the federal government has 
primarily funded disaster resilience projects in the wake of disasters-
when damages have already occurred and opportunities to pursue future 
risk reduction may conflict with the desire for the immediate 
restoration of critical infrastructure.\12\ In October 2019, we issued 
the Disaster Resilience Framework to serve as a guide for analysis of 
federal actions to facilitate and promote resilience to natural 
disasters and changes in the climate.\13\ According to the framework, 
investments in disaster resilience are a promising avenue to address 
federal fiscal exposure because such investments offer the opportunity 
to reduce the overall impact of disasters. Users of the Disaster 
Resilience Framework can consider its principles and questions to 
analyze any type of existing federal effort, identify gaps in existing 
federal efforts, or consider the federal role. Specifically, this 
framework can be used to identify opportunities to address gaps in 
federal efforts by, for example, supporting identification of options 
to address government-wide challenges that are of a scale and scope not 
addressed by existing programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ See GAO, Disaster Resilience Framework: Principles for 
Analyzing Federal Efforts to Facilitate and Promote Resilience to 
Natural Disasters, GAO-20-100SP (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 23, 2019) and, 
for example, GAO, Hurricane Sandy: An Investment Strategy Could Help 
the Federal Government Enhance National Resilience for Future 
Disasters, GAO-15-515 (Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2015).
    \13\ GAO-20-100SP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The framework is organized around three guiding principles-
information, integration, and incentives-and a series of questions that 
can help identify opportunities to enhance federal efforts to promote 
disaster resilience (see fig. 1). These principles can be applied to 
any federal effort-including the funding of transportation 
infrastructure-to help federal agencies and policymakers consider what 
kinds of actions to take if they seek to promote and facilitate 
disaster risk reduction.


    Figure 1: GAO's Disaster Resilience Framework

  --Information. We have found that accessing information that is 
        authoritative and understandable can help decision makers 
        identify current and future disaster and climate-related risks. 
        Moreover, natural and climate disaster risk information that is 
        accurate, comprehensive, and produced or endorsed by an 
        authoritative source can help decision makers better assess 
        their risk. However, this has historically been a challenge. 
        For example, in November 2015, we reported that the climate 
        information needs of federal, state, local, and private sector 
        decision makers were not being fully met, while the federal 
        government's own climate data-composed of observational records 
        from satellites and weather stations and projections from 
        climate models-were fragmented across individual agencies that 
        use the information in different ways to meet their 
        missions.\14\ We recommended that the Executive Office of the 
        President direct a federal entity to develop a set of 
        authoritative climate change projections and observations and 
        create a national climate information system with defined roles 
        for federal agencies and nonfederal entities. As of December 
        2020, the Office has not yet taken action to implement these 
        recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ GAO, Climate Information: A National System Could Help 
Federal, State, Local, and Private Sector Decision Makers Use Climate 
Information, GAO-16-37 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 23, 2015).

  --Integration. In addition, we have found that integrated analysis 
        and planning can help decision makers take coherent and 
        coordinated actions to promote disaster and climate-related 
        resilience. For example, our October 2019 report shows that no 
        federal agency, interagency collaborative effort, or other 
        organizational arrangement has been established to implement a 
        strategic approach to climate resilience investment that 
        includes periodically identifying and prioritizing 
        projects.\15\ Such an approach could supplement individual 
        agency climate resilience efforts and help target federal 
        resources toward high-priority projects. We recommended that 
        Congress consider establishing a federal organizational 
        arrangement to periodically identify and prioritize climate 
        resilience projects for federal investment. As of July 2020, 
        Congress has not yet taken action to implement this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ GAO, Climate Resilience: A Strategic Investment Approach for 
High-Priority Projects Could Help Target Federal Resources, GAO-20-127 
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 23, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We have also reported on how coordination across missions and 
sectors may help prioritize investments in resilience-related projects.
    For example, in our December 2014 report on transit system 
resilience, we found that transit agencies face challenges with placing 
priorities on resilience and with certain aspects of some grant 
programs.\16\ Specifically, we observed that it is difficult for 
transit agencies to place priority on resilience activities because 
such activities compete with other priorities for funding. We reported 
that, while it is not possible to make a transit system completely 
immune to catastrophic events, continued efforts by all parties to 
place priority on and improve resilience through preparedness, 
response, recovery, and mitigation could help our nation's transit 
systems potentially better withstand and recover from such events and 
reduce human and economic impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ GAO, Public Transit: Federal and Transit Agencies Taking Steps 
to Build Transit Systems' Resilience but Face Challenges, GAO-15-159 
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 10, 2014).

  --Incentives. We have also found that incentives can lower the costs 
        or increase the benefits of disaster and climate resilience 
        efforts. Because much of the nation's infrastructure is not 
        owned and operated by the federal government, many resilience-
        related decisions ultimately are made by nonfederal actors, and 
        those decision makers face competing priorities. Incentives, 
        such as legal or regulatory requirements attached to available 
        federal funding, can help promote investments in disaster risk 
        reduction and encourage disaster resilience decision making for 
        infrastructure. An example of this is requiring building codes 
        and standards based on the best available information for 
        infrastructure built or repaired with federal funds. As we 
        reported in November 2016, design standards, building codes, 
        and voluntary certifications play a role in ensuring the 
        resilience of federal and nonfederal transportation 
        infrastructure to the effects of natural disasters and extreme 
        weather.\17\ We recommended a government-wide approach in which 
        the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 
        convene an ongoing government- wide effort to provide forward-
        looking climate information to standards organizations. As of 
        April 2021, NIST had not yet taken action to implement this 
        recommendation, but in January 2021, NIST held a workshop aimed 
        at connecting the U.S. building codes and standards development 
        communities with agencies and organizations collecting and 
        disseminating climate change information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ GAO, Climate Change: Improved Federal Coordination Could 
Facilitate Use of Forward- Looking Climate Information in Design 
Standards, Building Codes, and Certifications, GAO-17-3 (Washington, 
D.C. Nov. 30, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
preliminary observations on actions taken and options to enhance fhwa's 
                     climate resilience activities
    FHWA has implemented actions to encourage states to enhance the 
climate resilience of federally funded roads, and there are options to 
further enhance them. During the last 10 years, FHWA has developed 
agency policy, provided technical assistance to states, supported 
climate resilience research funding, and taken other steps to encourage 
states to enhance the climate resilience of roads in the federal-aid 
highway program. For example, FHWA provided states with technical 
assistance aimed at improving the climate resilience of federally 
funded roads. This assistance focused on developing tools that states 
can use to evaluate vulnerabilities and resilience options and to 
integrate climate change information into road projects. In addition, 
FHWA co-funded more than 50 resilience research pilot projects to 
assess vulnerabilities and options for improving resilience, evaluate 
the potential for nature-based features, such as wetlands, to protect 
coastal assets, and develop approaches for integrating climate 
resilience into state asset management plans and other processes.
    Some states have leveraged FHWA's activities to enhance climate 
resilience in some federal-aid highway projects. Specifically, in our 
ongoing work, we have found examples of projects that used FHWA 
resilience resources and climate projection information to plan or 
implement physical resilience enhancements on federally funded roads. 
For example, the Delaware Department of Transportation used FHWA 
resilience tools and resilience research funding to improve storm water 
drainage at a project site on Delaware State Route 1-a major access 
route to state beaches and tourist facilities-that closes to traffic 
due to flooding a few times every year and is vulnerable to sea level 
rise. Delaware Department of Transportation officials used FHWA 
guidance to identify which resources and data they would need to design 
a resilience project. They also used FHWA resilience research funding 
to, among other things, incorporate climate change information into 
site assessments. The resilience enhancements they implemented included 
building a sand dune levee and tidal marsh, stabilizing a beach with 
bags filled with oyster shells, repairing a rock wall, and replacing 
existing drainage. See figure 2 for a photograph of flooding along 
Delaware State Route 1 and a rendering of the resilience enhancements 
implemented at the project site.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Figure 2: Flooding (Left) and Resilience Enhancements Made (Right) 
on Delaware State Route 1.

    As part of our ongoing work we identified-through a review of 
relevant literature and interviews with knowledgeable stakeholders-
options that could further enhance climate resilience of projects 
funded by the federal- aid highway program. (See table 1.) Some of 
these options are similar to actions we have previously recommended in 
our prior work. The options include both actions that FHWA might 
undertake on its own and those that might require congressional action. 
For example, according to FHWA officials, putting in place resilience 
funding requirements or imposing conditions or providing incentives 
related to resilience would likely require congressional action. 
However, options such as further integrating resilience into FHWA 
policy and guidance or establishing additional climate resilience 
planning or project requirements are examples of activities the agency 
could potentially undertake on its own, according to FHWA officials.

 Table 1: Options to further enhance the climate resilience of federally
   funded roads, as suggested by relevant literature and knowledgeable
                              stakeholders
 
                                                      Option
 
 
                                         =Integrate climate resilience==
                                           into Federal Highway
                                           Administration (FHWA) policy
                                           and guidancea Update design
                                           standards to account for
                                           climate change and resilience
                                           best practices\a\
                                         -------------------------------
                                          Provide authoritative,
                                           actionable, forward-looking
                                           climate information\a\
                                         -------------------------------
                                          Add climate resilience funding
                                           eligibility requirements,
                                           conditions, or criteria to
                                           formula grant programsb
                                           Expand the availability of
                                           discretionary funding for
                                           climate resilience
                                           improvements\a\
                                         -------------------------------
                                          Alter the Emergency Relief
                                           program by providing
                                           incentives for, or
                                           conditioning funding on, pre-
                                           disaster resilience actionsb
                                           Expand the availability of
                                           Emergency Relief funding for
                                           post-disaster climate
                                           resilience improvements\b\
                                         -------------------------------
                                          Establish additional climate
                                           resilience planning or
                                           project requirementsa Link
                                           climate resilience actions or
                                           requirements to incentives or
                                           penalties\b\
                                         -------------------------------
                                          Condition eligibility,
                                           funding, or project approval
                                           on compliance with climate
                                           resilience policy and
                                           guidance\b\
                                         ===============================
 
Source: GAO analysis of literature and interviews with knowledgeable
  stakeholders. GAO 21-561T
\a\Generally speaking, FHWA officials said they could likely implement
  aspects of this option under existing law and said specific proposals
  would need to be evaluated.
\b\Generally speaking, FHWA officials said they would likely need
  additional congressional direction or authority to implement this
  option and said specific proposals would need to be evaluated.

    The appropriate mix of options to enhance the climate resilience of 
federally funded roads is a policy choice that requires complex 
tradeoff decisions. These tradeoffs should be made with full 
information about the strengths and limitations of different options 
and involvement from stakeholders including states, localities, and 
nongovernmental entities. However, these policy options may present an 
opportunity to improve resilience in the nation's highway system and 
help ensure that federally funded roads and bridges can withstand or 
more easily recover from changes in the climate. Further, as noted in 
our Disaster Resilience Framework, enhancing resilience can reduce the 
need for federal disaster assistance and limit the federal government's 
fiscal exposure in the future.
    Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the 
Subcommittee this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased 
to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

    Senator Schatz. Thank you very much, Ms. Repko.
    And now we wish aloha kakahiaka to my friend, Ed Sniffen, 
calling in from the State of Hawaii Department of 
Transportation.
STATEMENT OF EDWIN H. SNIFFEN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HAWAII 
            DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    Mr. Sniffen. Hello, Mr. Schatz, Ranking Member Collins, and 
members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the 
opportunity to testify regarding climate resiliency and 
transportation systems.
    The Hawaii Department of Transportation manages and 
operates the multimodal systems that serve as the major 
distribution hub for the Pacific region and lifeline for the 
state. These systems are surrounded by water and we are 
planning within all modes for greater impacts in the future as 
sea levels continue to rise.
    The Hawaii Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation 
Commission forecasts that 1 meter of sea level rise will impact 
the Hawaiian Islands by the year 2100. If we take the 
traditional approach of relocating transportation facilities, 
we would be looking at an estimated $30 billion to move or 
elevate state roads and bridges, address impacts at airports, 
and protect the state's commercial harbor facilities.
    In 2018 we had nearly $100 million in damages from 
flooding, landslides, hurricanes, earthquakes, and volcanic 
eruptions that qualified for the Federal Highway Administration 
Emergency Relief Program. This included the April 2018 flood 
event on Kauai, when 50 inches of rain fell in the Waipa area 
within a 24-hour period.
    Facing the reality of these extreme events becoming more 
extreme, more often, and seeing the impacts of climate change 
on our neighbors in the Compact of Free Association States, 
Hawaii is compelled to act.
    Hawaii DOT has completed vulnerability studies, is 
implementing a three-tier approach to mitigating stressors to 
the system, and is considering resiliency in all of its 
operations, while reducing energy consumption and greening 
operations at the same time. This ties into Governor David 
Ige's direction, as he has committed the state to a 100 percent 
clean energy goal by 2045.
    As the chair of AASHTO's Committee on Transportation System 
Security and Resilience, I work with my counterparts across the 
country to address climate change and energy issues. All state 
Departments of Transportation struggle with the resources 
needed to address resilience in systems.
    I respectfully recommend three ways this subcommittee has 
the ability to amplify the transportation resiliency efforts of 
the states and territories. First, please support increased 
investment to improve infrastructure resilience to the American 
Jobs Plan. This can be accomplished through formula programs or 
discretionary grant programs focused on resiliency, planning, 
improvements and adaptation strategies. Additionally, I am 
advocating for support of managed relocation to address the 
needs of underserved and rural communities.
    Next, support for increased coordination between resource 
agencies, researchers, and those engaged in day-to-day airport, 
port and highways operations on resilience and adaptation. 
Hawaii DOT Harbors Division is pursuing funding for a 
feasibility study in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers for use of a lock and dam system at Honolulu Harbor 
to control water levels. Estimated cost of the joint 
feasibility study is $3 million, and the estimated cost of a 
lock and dam system would be $3 billion.
    I always will work with both agencies to address the 
impacts to drainage, utilities and facilities connecting to the 
harbor. Support for doing projects such as this could provide 
insight into the use of similar systems to protect the seaside 
populations and assets nationally.
    Finally, I recommend support for expediting the Federal 
project delivery processes so needed resiliency and adaptation 
projects can be implemented now. Programs can be adapted to be 
more efficient while maintaining integrity of purpose. For 
example, programmatic agreements for Endangered Species Act and 
historic preservation consultation can save months on 
processing.
    The American Jobs Plan is a call to action challenging and 
empowering the states to identify future impacts, prioritize 
transformative improvements, be innovative to improve the 
quality and life of our facilities, and default to proactive 
action to build our infrastructure to be safer, stronger, and 
sounder now, to ensure the people and communities we serve can 
count on their infrastructure and their government to support 
them for years to come.
    Thank you again for the honor and the opportunity to 
testify today. I am happy to answer any questions.
    [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Mr. Edwin H. Sniffen
                              introduction
    Chair Schatz, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding 
climate resiliency within the transportation industry.
    My name is Ed Sniffen. I am Deputy Director of Highways for the 
Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) and I chair the American 
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 
Committee on Transportation System Security and Resilience (CTSSR). As 
part of the agency responsible for ensuring the people of Hawaii are 
connected through our multimodal transportation system, I believe I can 
provide a credible first-hand account of the need for climate 
resiliency in transportation. Hawaii is separated by 2,000 miles from 
the nearest state. When disasters strike, there is no trucking goods or 
people across state lines.
    Currently, 70 percent of the state highways system in Hawaii is 
vulnerable to a stressor or hazard. In 2018, we had $94 million in 
damages from flooding, landslides, hurricane, earthquakes, volcanic 
eruption, and lava flow that qualified for the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA) Emergency Relief (ER) program. However, we're 
planning within all modes for greater impacts in the future as sea 
levels continue to rise.
    The 2017 Hawaii Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Adaptation Report 
forecasts one meter of sea level rise affecting the Hawaiian Islands by 
2100. If we took a traditional approach of relocating transportation 
facilities, we'd be looking at an estimated $30 billion to relocate or 
elevate state roads and bridges, address impacts to airports, and 
protect the state's commercial harbor facilities.
    Facing this reality as well as seeing the impacts of climate change 
on our neighbors in the Compact of Free Association States, Hawaii is 
compelled to act. Hawaii Governor David Ige committed to a goal to 
generate 100 percent clean energy by 2045. HDOT is contributing to this 
effort through its energy savings performance contract and by greening 
operations whenever possible.
    This subcommittee possesses the ability to act to amplify the 
transportation resiliency efforts of Hawaii and the other states and 
territories. As the chair of the CTSSR, I work with my counterparts 
across the country to address climate change and energy issues. Based 
on communications with CTSSR members and my own experiences operating 
and maintaining Hawaii's state highways system, I respectfully 
recommend:

  --Support for investment to improve infrastructure resilience through 
        the American Jobs Plan.

  --Support for increased coordination between resource agencies, 
        researchers, and those engaged in day-to-day airport, port, and 
        highways operations on resilience and adaptation.

  --Support for expediting the federal project delivery processes so 
        needed resiliency and adaptation projects can be implemented 
        now.
adaptation is crucial for the transportation industry: hawaii's case in 
                                 point
    When your transportation systems are surrounded by water, climate 
adaptation is a must. However, I would like to make the argument that 
climate adaptation is necessary for all, regardless of their geography. 
Transportation resilience is about balancing today's needs with the 
future and setting the plans and processes so that addressing 
adaptation is the default.
    To that end, all HDOT operational divisions have initiated climate 
adaption studies in response to ongoing and forecasted climate change.
                        airport vulnerabilities
    The 15 airports managed by HDOT are an important driver for 
Hawaii's economy. To plan for the needed actions to protect and 
preserve these resources, HDOT studied the system's vulnerabilities to 
sea level rise. Accepted sea level rise forecast is that inundation 
would occur at 10 of Hawaii's airports.
    Adaptation strategies considered for airports are:

  1. Construct shoreline revetment/sea walls, elevate runways and 
        taxiways, retrofit facilities.

  2. Retrofit all facilities by reconstruction and modification to at 
        least one foot above the projected sea-level rise elevation 
        over the next 100 years.

  3. Relocate the airports to higher elevations.

    Based on construction costs of current projects, we are looking at 
a need for approximately $8 billion to address anticipated sea level 
rise at Hawaii's airports.
                    commercial harbor considerations
    Commercial harbors cannot retreat from the shoreline, so HDOT is 
working with stakeholders to plan for increased pier freeboard as new 
facilities such as the Kapalama Container Terminal in Honolulu are 
built. The pier elevation for the new facility will be at nine feet, 
which should provide 0.34 feet of clearance at high tide at the time of 
projected one meter sea level rise.
    Another potential strategy to address the vulnerability of Hawaii's 
major port is though controlling the water level within the bay. HDOT 
Harbors Division is pursuing funding for a feasibility study in 
conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for use of a lock and 
dam system at the harbor channels to keep water levels at desired 
levels and allow ship movement. Estimated cost of the joint feasibility 
study is $3 million and estimated cost of a lock and dam system would 
be $3 billion.
    A water control system at Honolulu Harbor would not only protect 
the port where the majority of commercial goods from toilet paper to 
spam enter the state, it could potentially protect surrounding 
neighborhoods and provide insight into the use of such systems to 
protect seaside populations and assets. Honolulu Harbor also serves as 
a distribution point for goods transported to Guam, the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the Compact of Free 
Association nations.
    For commercial harbors not suited to such modifications (e.g., 
broad bays) HDOT is also planning on replacing pile supported piers 
with bulkhead piers to increase survivability of the structures. The 
cost to replace all current pile supported piers is approximately $8 
billion.
                highways climate adaptation action plan
    Highways Climate Adaptation Action Plan provides a roadmap for 
HDOT's Highways Division to improve the system's resilience to climate-
related effects. It includes locations along state highway facilities 
that are at risk from natural hazards and recommendations to 
incorporate resilience measures into programs and policies.
    Understanding and pre-emptively addressing how roads are exposed to 
climate-related hazards helps inform state agencies and communities 
about changing environmental conditions that may strain highways 
infrastructure.
    Hazards analyzed include:

  --Rockfalls and landslides
  --Inland floods
  --Wildfires
  --Coastal inundation due to sea level rise
  --Storm surges
  --Tsunamis
  --Coastal erosion
  --Groundwater inundation
  --Lava flows (not climate related but a major consideration for 
        Hawaii)

    Actions HDOT is taking going forward for resilience include 
formation of working groups to consider climate adaptation and 
environmental impacts before projects start and making resilience a 
consideration for design. To create designs that will be more resilient 
to future stresses from extreme weather or other sources, HDOT will 
plan for 30 years into the future, avoid setting blanket policies, and 
incorporating adaptation design making and risk based scenarios.
                       multimodal considerations
    Examining these vulnerability studies, coastal inundation due to 
sea level rise is the greatest climate adaptation consideration for 
Hawaii. Given the limited land mass and considerable costs for 
acquiring land and construction, relocation of the facilities that will 
be inundated is cost prohibitive. Considering that airports and harbors 
are not likely to be relocated, highways and connector roads leading to 
these facilities must be protected to maintain service and keep the 
flow of commerce going.
                    hawaii's resilience initiatives
    Based on fuel consumption alone, transportation is a large 
contributor to the release of carbon dioxide into the environment. The 
carbon emissions from vehicles, ships, boats, and aircraft account for 
about 28 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and have been 
increasing from 2008 to 2018. With global carbon dioxide levels higher 
now than at any time in the past 3.6 million years, this is an 
unacceptable trend.
    In 2013 HDOT entered an 18 year Energy Savings Performance Contract 
to replace lighting and other infrastructure with energy efficient 
technologies. To date through the contract, over 161,000 light fixtures 
have been replaced with Light Emitting Diode lamps and 40,000 
photovoltaic systems have been installed at state airports, harbors, 
and along state highways.
    Other HDOT resource savings initiatives include design of the 
Consolidated Rental Car Facility at the state's second busiest airport 
to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Silver standards and 
the procurement of electric vehicles (EV) and charging infrastructure 
as a service through a contract available to all state and county 
agencies. The EV service contract will allow Hawaii agencies to convert 
or right-size their fleets with minimal upfront investment.
    These initiatives were only possible because of the networking, 
resource sharing, and coordination encouraged at all levels of 
government in Hawaii. On the national level we encourage sharing of 
resilience initiatives and results through CTSSR activities such as 
webinars and peer exchange. Support from the Senate for transportation 
resilience would encourage more collaboration, research, and 
implementation of effective resilience initiatives.
    The support of this subcommittee for additional funding and an 
expedited project delivery process would greatly aid in getting more 
resilience initiatives out of the theoretical stages and into practice 
on our streets, bridges, runways, and harbors. HDOT is currently 
approaching building resilience into our systems using a variety of 
approaches, including pursuing green infrastructure such as carbon 
mineralized concrete and adding recycled plastics to asphalt mixes. 
Investing in resilient infrastructure on a federal level will enable us 
and other transportation agencies to implement better and greener 
infrastructure.
     recommendations for support of resilience at the federal level
    As the CTSSR Chair, I believe that the definition of resilience is 
critical and should not be related simply to the ability of an asset to 
not fail during certain events (e.g., a bridge strike or a category 
five hurricane); rather, it needs to involve the ability of a state DOT 
to:

  --Anticipate, plan and adapt to potential risks,

  --Withstand, respond to, or recover when an event occurs, and;

  --Construct and maintain assets that decrease project vulnerability 
        risks.

    When considering funding for resilience, the current core formula 
program eligibility could be expanded to consider resilience 
improvements; formula funding could be set aside to focus on 
resilience-related planning, coordination, and evacuation; or, a 
discretionary grant program for adaptation strategies could be 
established. Additionally, I am advocating for support of managed 
relocation to address the needs of underserved and rural communities.
    In general, AASHTO recommends avoiding new plans, programs, and 
analysis processes as this increases cost and burden to state DOTs.
        supporting resilience examples from aashto member states
                     california resilience example
    A period of heavy rainfall beginning Jan. 5, 2019, resulted in the 
movement of a landslide along Route 101 in Mendocino County. Continued 
movement resulted in damage to the southbound lane and shoulder 
ultimately requiring closure of the southbound lane. Due to signs of 
continual movement, forecast of heavy rain, and to avoid further loss 
of the roadway Caltrans determined that immediate ``permanent 
restoration repairs as EO'' were necessary to minimize the extent of 
damage, protect the remaining facilities and achieve resilience. Such 
work includes providing immediate traffic control, conducting 
geotechnical investigation, repairing damaged drainage system and 
providing final slope and roadway stabilization via a Soldier Pile 
Ground Anchor Wall. Final Geotechnical investigations indicated that 
solider pile wall at 11PM 95.85 was the only possible permanent repair 
solution.
    Another Caltrans example comes from Rat Creek, Highway 1, Big Sur. 
In the summer of 2020, the 125,000-acre Dolan Fire in Monterey County 
left 20 miles of Highway 1 on the Big Sur coast downslope of the Dolan 
Fire burn scar. Even before the fire was extinguished preventative work 
was initiated. In anticipation of debris flow during winter rain 
events, Caltrans augmented its already robust winter prep efforts along 
Highway 1 and analyzed 61 drainage systems along this stretch of coast 
while making improvements at 37 locations. In late January 2021, an 
intense, 3-day rain event, referred to as an atmospheric river, dropped 
up to 17 inches of rainfall and created post-fire debris flows that 
impacted over 60 cross drainages. Of the 37 drainage sites improved 
during preventative winter prep efforts, 23 performed as intended and 
minimized damage to the roadway. At Rat Creek on Highway 1, the debris 
flow overwhelmed the drainage infrastructure and overtopped the highway 
embankment. This caused erosion and head-cutting that eventually washed 
out a 150-foot long section of roadway. Once the site at Rat Creek was 
assessed, a multi-functional team including engineers from all fields 
of civil engineering began developing a reconstructed, enhanced 
embankment to restore the highway. The repair was designed for a large 
rain event such as a 100-year storm. It is also designed for a 
combination of a large-scale fire (similar to the Dolan Fire) and a 
large rain event such as 50-year storm. The repair design provides 
increased hydraulic and bulking capacity, which incorporates a larger 
diameter culvert and redundancies, which serve to make the highway more 
resilient in the future. The roadway was able to be opened to traffic 
just 86 days after the event occurred.
                      missouri resilience example
    Flooding along the Missouri River in northwest Missouri resulted in 
the closure of several roads and highways along with subsequent major 
damages to some of those routes. This area had flooding in 2010, 2011 
and 2019. The flooding for these three events cost $14.8 million in 
damages to US 136, $7.8 million in damages to US 159, and $5.6 million 
in damages to MO 111. Flooding events in 2011 and 2019 included 
complete washouts of the pavement and roadway embankment resulting in 
holes up to 60 feet deep and about 200-300 feet long.
    After the second significant flood event in less than ten years, 
Missouri looked at developing resiliency projects to protect these 
routes from future flood events. The option that was decided on for all 
three routes was to install tied concrete block mats on the 
downstreamin-slopes with more robust shoulders on each side. The 
estimated resiliency project costs for each route are $8.0 million for 
US 136, $11.4 million for US 159, and $2.0 million for MO 111. These 
projects are to be funded from the FHWA ER Program.
    Missouri is also experiencing other issues with resilience. For 
example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recently denied 
$9.5 million in repairs of 2019 roadway flood damage due to what they 
call ``deferred maintenance'' issues. Basically, since the roadway 
surface was not in a condition they considered acceptable (due to lack 
of available state and federal funds) they are denying all damage on 
the route. In many cases this includes ditch erosion, pipe washouts and 
many other non-surface related damages. This is an example of how 
funding issues can compound a problem and make it even more difficult 
to build resilience. Missouri may be 100 percent responsible for taking 
care of the repairs, which in turn reduces ability to invest in 
additional improvements or resilience projects.
    With the ongoing pandemic it has taken over a year for FEMA to make 
this determination. Delayed determinations can reduce a state's 
confidence and ability to quickly let repair projects, especially in 
cases where additional funds are being considered for resilience and 
where there is a chance the state may be on the hook for 100 percent of 
the cost. This is not a risk most states will be willing to take.
                        maine resilience example
    FHWA, Army Corps of Engineers, and MaineDOT have a programmatic 
Endangered Species Act consultation for effects to Atlantic salmon and 
its Critical Habitat. The agreement has improved fish passage for 
MaineDOT projects and also contributes to future resilience of 
MaineDOT's infrastructure. In the agreement, MaineDOT committed to 
specific design standards that seek to reconnect waters for endangered 
salmon, with benefits to other fish and wildlife. To meet these fish 
passage design standards, MaineDOT is typically required to increase 
the size of culverts and bridges when the structures are replaced; 
culverts sized for fish passage routinely have capacity for the 100-
year event or larger.
    The increased structure size improves the ability of infrastructure 
to withstand the more frequent and larger precipitation storm events 
that have occurred in recent years. MaineDOT's culvert design standards 
require culverts to be designed for a 100-year storm event.
    Additionally, the bridge design guidance requires bridge 
replacements to be designed to have at least 2-feet freeboard during 
the 50-year storm event and consider effects of the 100-year storm 
event or the flood of record during design. The fish passage design 
standards typically exceed the size requirements of the hydraulic 
standards and, therefore, result in more resilient structures.
                               conclusion
    The American Jobs Plan provides a call to build our infrastructure-
the roads, bridges, airports, ports, and other facilities that allow us 
to connect and live together as a nation-to be safer, stronger, and 
sounder. My intention as a witness was to share the impacts of the 
climate crisis in Hawaii and the resilience and adaptation we are 
building into our system now. It is crucial that we work 
collaboratively to research and implement solutions to increase our 
systems' resilience to extreme weather and climate-related disaster 
events.
    An increased investment in infrastructure resilience could spark 
innovation in engineering for sea level rise, protection of coastal 
assets, stabilization of slopes to reduce landslides and rockfall risk, 
decarbonization of construction materials and other potential 
solutions. I would also like to take the opportunity to advocate for 
increased flexibility in existing programs such as Transportation 
Alternatives that encourage development of pedestrian and bicycle 
facilities and other small scale projects with community benefits. 
Consideration of removal of the local match for community 
Transportation Alternatives projects could encourage improvements for 
nonmotorized users of our systems.
    Thank you again for the honor and opportunity to testify today, and 
I am happy to answer any questions.

    Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Sniffen.
    I will now turn to the ranking member to introduce our next 
testifier.
    Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Habib Dagher is a professional engineer, and professor 
at the University of Maine. He has a Ph.D in Civil and 
Structural Engineering. He serves as the founding executive 
director of the Advance Structures and Composites Center, A 
National Science Foundation-funded Research Center housed in a 
100,000-square-foot laboratory at the University of Maine. And 
the center has been a world leader in the development of low-
cost, high-performance structural composites for construction.
    He is also the director of the Transportation 
Infrastructure Durability Center, a Region 1 University 
Transportation Center that the university competed vigorously 
for, and I was very proud of when it was awarded to the 
university. That is due to Dr. Dagher's great work. And I would 
note that he has received many, many awards over the years, but 
I have wanted to point out one that he received in 2015. He was 
the White House Transportation Champion of Change.
    So there is no one who can give us more insight, in my 
view, into what is going on at the university level in research 
and development in the area that is the topic of this hearing. 
So it is a great honor to have him here.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Schatz. Please proceed, Dr. Dagher.
    Senator Collins. Doctor, I don't know that you have your 
mic on, and if you do, if you could pull it closer.
STATEMENT OF DR. HABIB DAGHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 
            ADVANCED STRUCTURES AND COMPOSITES CENTER, 
            UNIVERSITY OF MAINE
    Dr. Dagher. Thank you, Senator Collins, for the wonderful 
remarks and your leadership on this committee for so many 
years.
    Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Collins, members of the 
subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development 
and Related Agencies, I am Habib Dagher, the executive director 
of the----
    Senator Collins. Sir, could you, please, bring the 
microphone closer to your mouth. Thank you.
    Dr. Dagher. Is this better?
    Senator Schatz. Yes.
    Dr. Dagher. I am Habib Dagher, the director of the Advanced 
Structures and Composite Center at the University of Maine. It 
is the largest university-based research center in the State of 
Maine. We conduct research and development on sustainable 
advanced materials, on structures and construction methods 
suitable for transportation, housing and defense applications. 
We are also preparing the leaders that will take these 
technologies to the future and implement them.
    Over the last many years, we financially sponsored over 
2,600 engineers who are now working in transportation 
departments in other places taking these materials to practice. 
I also lead the University Transportation Center funded by the 
Federal DOT, called the Transportation Infrastructure 
Durability Center. We are conducting currently over 40 research 
projects across Maine and New England, all aimed at increasing 
the life of our transportation assets and developing designs 
for more durable, sustainable, and resilient roads and bridges 
and ports facilities.
    As you see from the four examples, I will provide 
investments in R&D, such as the University Transportation 
Centers are key to achieving cost-effective, resilient 
transportation systems of the future.
    We cannot keep building the same way and expect a different 
result. As we rebuild our roads and bridges, we have a-once-in-
a-lifetime opportunity to use more durable, more sustainable 
advanced materials, including composites. That is exactly what 
the IMAGINE Act, introduced by Senator Collins and Whitehouse 
in March would facilitate. It would fund research in new 
materials and building technologies, and would spur Federal 
investments and infrastructural projects, for innovative 
materials focused on more durable, coastal, and rural assets.
    The IMAGINE Act also is very critical to maintaining U.S. 
technological leadership, because we are losing it in certain 
areas, particularly in the advanced materials space, and the 
stakes are very high. Next year construction will be worth 
roughly $1.5 trillion in the U.S., and the construction 
industry is worth more than 10 percent of the world's GDP.
    I am going to show--I have four different examples, 
specific examples on the ground of how we are making a 
difference with these materials systems.
    The first is called the ``bridge in a backpack'', and you 
could see a photo on page 2 of my testimony. These are bridges 
that are made with arches. They are inflated out of a hockey 
bag right on site, and can be infused with a resin and within 
four hours they are stronger than steel, and they can be filled 
with concrete on site.
    I have right here, an example of one of these tubes. 
Imagine a 70-foot-long arch that can be picked up by two 
people. Now the carbon footprint of these bridges is also about 
a quarter that of a conventional bridge.
    The second example is what we call the Composite U-Girder 
technology. The U-shaped composite girders are very light, they 
are about one-third to one-quarter the weight of steel, and 
they are pack very well. Actually you can pack a 280-foot-long 
bridge on one trailer, one stretch bed, and take it out to 
site. So when you look at problems of rebuilding after a 
disaster, being able to pack it light, and pack it short, and 
take it out to site is very important. And that is what this 
project does.
    And to give you an example, on page 4 of the testimony, I 
have got a 40-foot shipping container that is packing four 
bridges, right, in one shipping container.
    The next example I would like to cover is on page 6 of my 
testimony, is how to protect existing coastal assets. We are 
developing lightweight, 3D-printed portable breakwaters that 
you can deploy when the storm arrives. You know the storm is 
coming, you deploy these around the city and you protect the 
coastal assets from the high waves. We are going to try to do 
that for the first time this summer in the State of Maine, and 
we will let you know how it works.
    On Figure 9, you can show the simulations we have done, and 
the testing we have done on Figure 8 and 9, to prove how you 
can reduce the energy in the waves before it reaches the coast.
    And finally, I am going to show you a very simple idea, it 
is a bio-based 3D-printed culvert diffuser. You can place at 
the end of a culvert that increases the flow by 40 percent, so 
when the storm arrives, if you can run more water through a 
culvert you can reduce the impact.
    So the summary here is, please invest in R&D. That is how 
we are going to build a better transportation infrastructure of 
the future.
    Thank you. I am happy to answer questions.
    [The statement follows:]
             Prepared Statement of Dr. Habib Joseph Dagher
    Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Collins and Members of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and 
Related Agencies. My name is Habib Dagher and I am the Executive 
Director of the University of Maine's Advanced Structures and 
Composites Center (ASCC). It is the largest university-based research 
center in Maine, with 260 full and part-time employees.\1\ Over 35 
years at UMaine, I have dedicated my life to develop technologies that 
create jobs and protect the environment. We conduct research on the 
development of sustainable advanced materials, structures, and 
construction methods suitable for transportation, housing, and defense 
applications. Our work on innovative construction materials has earned 
national and international recognition, including the White House 
Transportation Champion of Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://composites.umaine.edu/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Center through our research grants and contracts has 
financially sponsored 2,600 student interns, who got paid to work on 
research projects. This R&D experience transforms their education and 
prepares them to become leaders in the field. I also lead the newly 
established US DOT Region 1 University Transportation Center, called 
the Transportation Infrastructure Durability Center (TIDC). TIDC is 
currently conducting over 40 research projects across Maine and New 
England, all aimed at increasing the life of our transportation assets, 
and developing designs for more durable, sustainable and resilient 
roads, bridges and port facilities. These research projects are enabled 
by the US DOT UTC program. Each project has a designated State DOT 
``Champion'', who insures that the research innovations are put into 
practice within state DOTs and industry.
    As you will see from the four examples that I will provide, 
investment in research and development (R&D) such as the UTCs, are key 
to achieving a cost-effective, resilient transportation system of the 
future. We can't keep building it the same way and expect a different 
result. As we rebuild our roads and bridges, we have a once-in-a-
lifetime opportunity to use more durable, more sustainable advanced 
materials including composite materials. That's exactly what the 
IMAGINE Act introduced by Senators Collins and Whitehouse in March 
would facilitate. It would fund research into new materials and 
building techniques, and would spur federal investment in 
infrastructure projects that utilize innovative materials, focusing on 
more durable coastal and rural assets. The IMAGINE Act will be critical 
to maintaining U.S. technological leadership in the advanced materials 
space, and the stakes are very high. New construction is expected to be 
worth $1.5 trillion in the U.S. in 2022, and the construction industry 
is worth more than 10% of the world GDP.
    The following are examples of four composites materials projects 
that we have carried out at UMaine, which help achieve a more resilient 
transportation infrastructure: 1) The ``bridge in a backpack'' 
composites arch technology; 2) The Composite tub U-Girder technology; 
3) Floating deployable breakwaters; and 4) Bio-based 3D printed culvert 
diffusers to protect roads from storms.
    1. The ``bridge in a backpack'' composites arch technology. Highway 
bridges are built by inflating lightweight composite arches that can 
fit in a hockey bag and can be picked up by one person. The tube is 
inflated, it is bent to an arch form over a mold, infused with a resin, 
and four hours later, one has a hollow tubular arch that is stronger 
than steel. The lightweight arches are placed 5 or 6 ft apart, a 
composite material corrugated deck is lag screwed over the arches, the 
arches are filled with concrete, the bridge is backfilled with sand and 
paved. These bridges have been commercialized and a company in Maine is 
kitting them and sending them across country. Because they are 
lightweight, the kits can be easily transported to the site after a 
natural disaster, and do not need heavy equipment to build. They 
require little maintenance and are designed for a 100 year life. Their 
carbon footprint is about 1/2 of that of a conventional bridge.


Figure 1--Used in more than 30 bridges, the patented ``bridge-in-a-
backpack'' technology reduces life cycle costs, reduces carbon 
footprint by approximately 50 percent, accelerates bridge construction 
and is AASHTO approved. Arches are lightweight and can be produced near 
the bridge site, which makes them suitable for disaster response. A 60 
ft 2-lane bridge kit can fit on a pickup truck or in a 20 ft shipping 
container.

    2. The Composite U-Girder Technology. These U-shaped composite 
``tub'' girders are very light, 1/3d-1/4 the weight of steel girders. 
One can transport the girders for four 2-lane, 70ft long bridges, on 
one stretch-bed. The girders are designed for 100 years, and they nest 
together reducing the shipping volume. The concrete deck is designed to 
be removable so that jack-hammering of the deck after 50 years is not 
needed. The carbon foot print is reduced due to the efficient shipping, 
use of small cranes, and the increased 100 years life.


Figure 2--The lightweight tub U-Girders are designed for 100 years, and 
support a concrete deck that can be ``unbolted'' and replaced after 50 
years, eliminating the need to Jack-hammer the deck.


Figure 3--Four 70ft long U-girder bridges fit on one truck. The heavier 
steel girders require 4 trucks.


Figure 4--Four 40ft U-girder bridges fit on one truck. The heavier 
concrete girders require 15 trucks.


Figure 5--3D printed U-girder mold made on the world's largest 3D 
printer at UMaine.


Figure 6--Composite U-girder made on the 3D printed mold. 


Figure 7--Grist Mill bridge article in ENR, Jan. 25, 2021

    https://www.enr.com/articles/51086-novel-fiberglass-girders-extend-
life-of-maine-bridge

    3. Modular deployable floating breakwater designs to protect 
coastal assets

  --Floating breakwater deployed before a storm arrives to protect 
        coastal assets or coastal operations, removed afterwards

  --Self-adjust to water level

  --Modular design, easily stored, then assembled for rapid deployment 
        when needed

  --The breakwater technology can help reduce coastal erosion using 
        bio-based 3d printed materials.

  --This year, a 75 ft prototype breakwater will be deployed offshore 
        Maine to test the ability to reduce sea-state 2 incident wave 
        energy by 40-50%.
        
        
Figure 8--UMaine W2 Wave-Wind ocean engineering lab where the floating 
breakwaters were tested.


Figure 9--Effectiveness of floating breakwater in reducing wave energy.


Figure 10--Floating breakwater test site off the Maine coast later this 
year.

    4. Bio-based 3D printed culvert diffusers to reduce roadway storm 
damage

  --When corroded culverts are re-lined, the flow is restricted.

  --Culvert diffusers can increase the flow by 40%, mitigating roads 
        washing-out after storms.

  --Large scale 3D printing technology enables rapid manufacturing of 
        complex shaped culvert diffusers at half the cost, using bio-
        based materials.

  --Increasing the drainage flow in culvert relining projects by 40%, 
        avoids millions of dollars spent in complete culvert bridge 
        replacements.

  --First 3D-printed culvert diffuser to be installed in Maine this 
        summer.
        
        
Figure 11--3D-printed culvert diffuser using biomaterials at UMaine 
ASCC.


Figure 12--6ft long printed culvert diffuser will be installed by the 
Maine DOT this summer to test protection against flooding.

    Senator Schatz. Thank you very much to all of our great 
testifiers.
    I want to start with Ms. Trottenberg. $8 billion is not 
nearly enough for DOT's resiliency investments over a five-year 
period. There are projects in individual cities that will chew 
up that entire amount. The City of Louisiana--sorry--the City 
of Houston has requested $60 billion just from this 
subcommittee. Louisiana has identified $17.6 billion.
    As Mr. Sniffen reports, Hawaii's airports alone could show 
up $8 billion. So how should we understand $8 billion over 5 
years, if you are serious about these resiliency efforts? And I 
know you are, but the dollar amount seems like more of a 
placeholder than anything else. And I am wondering if you could 
speak to that.
    Ms. Trottenberg. Yes. Thank you for the question, Mr. 
Chairman. And just to contextualize, I think as I said in my 
testimony, the American Jobs Plan is actually talking about a 
transportation infrastructure investment of, you know, over 600 
billion. And resiliency is going to be baked into a lot of 
different components of those investments, the 100-plus billion 
in highways and the 80 billion in transit. So it will be, in 
part, baked into those figures.
    I think we have also proposed a separate $40 billion across 
different types of infrastructure resiliency program. But, you 
know, I think as the President has made clear, and we are 
seeing this week, this is obviously a proposal where we are 
ready to sit down and negotiate with Congress on. And I think a 
lot of good bipartisan discussions are going. I think this is 
an administration that certainly wants to make big investments 
in resiliency.
    Senator Schatz. That is all I wanted to hear. And I take 
the point that it will be integrated across all existing 
programs, but as you know, the Federal Highways Program, in 
particular, gives a ton of discretion to the local 
transportation agencies. And that; you know, that is a good 
thing if you are the local transportation agency.
    But if you are trying to drive Federal policy as it relates 
to climate resilience, then that worries me a bit, because you 
could plus-up the highway fund all you want and say that there 
is, you know, there are new opportunities for resiliency, but 
it may end up just being that you do the sort of souped-up FAST 
Act with some climate aspects. And that is not where we are 
trying to land. And so we are going to have to, sort of, 
wrangle over this over the next several months.
    Ms. Trottenberg. Certainly Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely 
right. It cannot just be dollars. There has to be good policy 
that goes with that to make sure those dollars are spent really 
wisely.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you.
    Mr. Sniffen, the DOT allows resiliency features in the 
Highway Emergency Relief Program on a limited basis, and the 
Hawaii Department of Transportation has been successful on this 
front. What are you doing differently that gets these projects 
approved? And how can this process be, sort of, scaled 
nationwide?
    Mr. Sniffen. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. You 
know, our Federal Highways partners in Hawaii are tremendous. 
They work with us directly to ensure that we can justify the 
cost benefits of upgrading our facilities during our emergency 
responses. We do a really good job of ensuring that we provide 
all the information necessary for Federal Highways to be able 
to justify on any decisions that they make.
    Federal Highways, through our AASHTO Committee, has been 
working with us to address this issue nationwide. They 
understand that this policy is being applied differently across 
the Nation. And from the state side, we understand that some 
states are not providing the information that we need to be 
able to justify these discussions. We are working directly with 
them to put in a series of webinars to ensure that all states 
and all Federal partners across the board understand the intent 
of the law, the intent of the program, and how to use it.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Stiffen. I am sort of torn 
between being very pleased that we, in particular, have a great 
Hawaii State Department of Transportation and a great 
partnership with our Federal government but, you know, that is 
not scalable, and it should not depend on having, you know, 
extraordinary leaders at both the state and Federal level. We 
should make policy to make sure that this happens regardless of 
who is in charge of the state government in a particular place, 
and regardless of the----sort of, the good relationship or not.
    So I look forward to talking to you a little bit longer, 
Mr. Sniffen, about what you are doing right but more 
importantly how to replicate this across the country, not just 
through webinars, but through statutory law.
    Dr. Dagher, a fascinating testimony. If you could give us 
one piece of advice as it relates to the Federal Department of 
Transportation being nimble enough to accommodate all of this 
new technology, what would that piece of advice be?
    Dr. Dagher. I think the ability to take the transportation 
centers currently being funded by the DOT and extend them so 
they can apply the work to the infrastructure. And that can be 
done by creating grant programs for demonstration projects that 
take all these wonderful ideas and put them into practice.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you very much.
    Senator Collins.
    Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Dagher, I look forward to attending the upcoming ribbon 
cutting at the Grist Mill Bridge, which is a 75-foot, single 
span bridge in Hampden, Maine. And it is my understanding this 
bridge is the first in the Nation to use composite girders with 
no concrete reinforcement in the structure. Could you explain 
the environmental impacts of this bridge? And also, is this 
bridge going to last longer than the average bridge?
    Dr. Dagher. Yes. Thank you, Senator Collins. This 
particular technology packs small, packs light, and it can be 
deployed very easily and very quickly. We do not need heavy 
equipment to build a bridge. And that reduces its environmental 
footprint significantly. You can use rental, or most rental 
cranes locally to erect some of these bridges because they are 
so light.
    So the advantage also is they last longer. So they are 
designed for 100-year life. So anytime you increase the life, 
everything else being equal, you reduce your carbon footprint 
significantly. So doubling the life reduces the carbon 
footprint by a factor of two, everything else being equal.
    Senator Collins. Thank you. I think that is a great example 
of the work being done at the University of Maine's Composite 
Center that is right on point for the subject of this hearing, 
a bridge that lasts longer and has less of a carbon footprint.
    Secretary Trottenberg, I want to talk to you a little bit 
about the Colonial Pipeline disaster, the cyberattack. FISMA, 
within your department, is responsible for the safety oversight 
of pipelines, I have realized its role at DHS and the 
Department of Energy as well. But I would like to know whether 
the Department, the agency within your Department has any 
standards for cybersecurity for pipelines. And whether you 
would support a mandatory reporting requirement, so when there 
is a cyberattack like this, there would be a requirement that 
it be reported to the Federal government. This was not an issue 
in this particular case, but could be in others.
    Ms. Trottenberg. Thank you Senator. It is a good question. 
And look, what we have seen with the cyberattack on the 
Colonial Pipeline has showed us, kind of, the two worlds coming 
together, cybersecurity and physical infrastructure. You know, 
the Biden administration has brought a whole-of-government 
approach, and I think we have obviously made some real progress 
in making sure we are getting oil where it needs to go.
    The pipeline is up and running again as of last night. Our 
agency is working very closely with DHS, Department of Defense, 
Department of energy, I think to look into this incident, to 
think closely about what we might do in the future, but DHS 
takes the lead on cybersecurity.
    And Senator, I think you raise a good issue here, which is 
obviously this is a privately-owned pipeline, a lot of our 
infrastructure is privately-owned and operated and, you know, 
not only do all the government agencies need to be working 
together, but we need to be working closely with the private 
sector as well.
    Senator Collins. That last point, it is a very important, 
one, 85 percent of our critical infrastructure is owned and 
operated by the private sector, and that is why I think we do 
need mandatory reporting and more cooperation between the 
public and private sectors.
    Let me follow up with you also about a point that was in 
Mr. Sniffen's written testimony, and he talked about the need 
to expedite the process so that we can deliver Federal projects 
more quickly. Is the administration going to propose any 
changes in the permitting process so that we can expedite these 
important projects?
    Ms. Trottenberg. I think, Senator, as you know, this has 
been, I think, a good subject of discussion and negotiation 
presently as--you know, the White House is talking to some of 
your colleagues about a reauthorization bill. I think there is 
a real desire on both sides of the aisle to do a better job on 
the permitting on project delivery.
    It is great to be here with some colleagues who I think 
have come up with some great innovations in how we can deliver 
projects faster. We can deliver them at a lower cost. We can be 
more innovative. You know, I think the administration is keen 
to work with you all on better ways to do that. The permitting 
process is one that has grown, you know, in some cases very 
complex and costly, and we can make improvements while also 
maintaining environmental protections, and all the things that 
the process is designed to address.
    Senator Collins. Thank you.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you, Senator Collins. I will just add 
very quickly on that. Programmatic environmental review is, in 
my view, one of the sweet spots maintaining the integrity of 
NEPA but making things work a little bit better.
    Senator Coons--I am sorry. We now have Senator Reed, 
virtually.
    Senator Collins. Senator Reed is used to my calling on him.
    [Laughing.]
    Senator Schatz. Senator Collins, did you want us--I think 
we have technical difficulties. He is pending.
    Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. Thank you very much for the opportunity to 
question. Welcome, Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Collins, so 
great to be with you for this first hearing of this Congress on 
hard infrastructure at the THUD Subcommittee.
    And thank you to our four amazing witnesses. I followed 
your testimony closely, and I think this is an urgent and 
significant issue that we are talking about. Obviously, I also 
appreciate the focus, not just by our committee, but by the 
Biden administration on the impact of climate change on our 
Nation's transportation infrastructure.
    As we have heard, whether it is the States of Hawaii, or 
Maine, or also my home state of Delaware, there are places all 
over our Nation that face significant risks from climate 
change. Delaware happens to be the lowest mean elevation state 
in the whole country. And because of subsidence, we face a 
greater risk from sea level rise than many other states.
    We also happen to be at a critical choke point in one of 
our Nation's most critical pieces of transportation 
infrastructure. The 450-mile Northeast Corridor, which runs 
from New England to Washington, D.C., is an absolutely critical 
lifeline for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast of our country. 
Pre-pandemic, it carried 12 million passengers every year in a 
single day without service on the NEC, would cost the economy 
$100 million.
    Ms. Trottenberg, as you certainly know from your time in 
New York City, dealing with the post-Sandy recovery, big storms 
pose a greater and greater threat every year to the Northeast 
Corridor and Amtrak's assets all up and down the East Coast, 
and certainly my home state of Delaware, vulnerable to storm 
surges and sea level rise.
    In 2017, Amtrak completed a study on the vulnerabilities of 
a specific 10-mile section of track in Wilmington, Delaware, 
and discovered half of that segment is highly vulnerable to 
flooding and could result in a total shutdown because there is 
no alternate route. It is a single path.
    So, Ms. Trottenberg, if you might; why should the Federal 
government invest in making the Northeast Corridor more 
resilient to flooding from sea level rise and storm surges? I 
am pleased that President Biden's American Jobs Plan includes 
80 billion for Amtrak. I would be interested in hearing what 
DOT is doing to prepare the NEC for climate change and how that 
AJP investment would scale those efforts.
    Ms. Trottenberg. Thank you for that question, Senator. In 
some ways I think your question answers itself a bit. I mean, 
obviously the Northeast Corridor----
    Senator Coons. It is called leading the witness, ma'am.
    Ms. Trottenberg. I mean, the Northeast Corridor is a 
critical transportation link. And you are correct. You know, 
having been on the ground in New York City and seeing the 
damage that Sandy did in the Hudson River Tunnels, but did also 
in a number of transit tunnels and roadway tunnels, once 
saltwater intrudes in a tunnel the damage is extensive and very 
costly.
    And, you know, clearly given what an important lifeline the 
Northeast Corridor is making some major investments I think in 
the long run is--I think all of us have emphasized in our 
testimony--will save us down the road. This is a lifeline we 
absolutely need to maintain and, you know, as you mentioned, 
Senator, unfortunately parts of the Northeast Corridor are 
pretty much at sea level.
    Senator Coons. Well, and as you mentioned in your 
testimony, investing in infrastructure that cannot withstand 
climate change is throwing good money after bad. And as someone 
who routinely commutes back and forth from Wilmington to 
Washington, I am very conscious that I go through a tunnel in 
Baltimore that was built in the 1870s, and over bridges that 
are a century old, all of which are right along the very edge 
of our coastline.
    Acting Director Repko, if I might? In your testimony you 
highlight Del DOT's, the Delaware Department of 
Transportation's work to improve climate resilience. And I 
think on page 11 of your testimony, there is a graphic 
demonstration. Those who have ever been to Dewey Beach, 
Delaware--and I hope it is a lot of the folks in the room at 
least amongst the staff if not the members--it is one of the 
favorite places of folks from Washington to go in the summers.
    You show how a major investment in Route 1 which connects 
Delaware up and down, the whole coastline, is vulnerable to 
regular flooding, and how it is relatively easy to deal with 
the stormwater drainage there through that--at that access 
point. How can Congress empower more states to improve climate 
resilience on federally-funded highway projects like that Route 
1 project in Delaware?
    Ms. Repko. Thank you, Senator. And I think it is important 
to note that states and locals are the folks who are 
implementing. They are usually working at the project level. So 
we see a Federal role being at the programmatic level, and that 
is really where the Disaster Resilience Framework comes in.
    We want to think about giving the right information and 
consistent information to folks. The Federal government can 
serve an integrative function, that is that it can reduce the 
challenges related to coordination, not have several funding 
streams with different timeframes or different goals coming at 
people, and it can also provide incentives.
    You know, there is incentive that the Federal government 
can do related to reducing administrative burdens. There is 
incentive that the Federal government can do in the testimony 
we present related to roads. You know, it could be options 
related to discretionary funding, or options related to design 
standards. All of these are key Federal roles that could help 
push states forward in building resilience.
    Senator Coons. Well, thank you.
    If I might; one last question, Mr. Chairman.
    I think what I am hearing from you, what we also heard from 
Deputy Director Sniffen, is that the interface between state 
departments of transportation and the Federal department of 
transportation needs some innovation, and needs some 
flexibility if we are going to deal with climate change.
    If I might, I am turning to Dr. Dagher, for my last 
question. The University of Delaware also does some cutting 
edge composite research. Certainly the University of Maine's 
Institute is one of the Nation's leading, if not the world's 
leading. I thought The New York Times article: The Totally 
Tubular was fabulous. And, I would love to follow up with you 
about the innovations that are being delivered, not just 
developed, but delivered in Maine in terms of infrastructure, 
relying on composites is fascinating.
    Could you just briefly tell us what more we could be doing 
to take the kinds of cutting-edge research that you are doing 
in composites and materials, and actually see it deployed at 
scale in our Nation's infrastructure to make it more resilient?
    Dr. Dagher. Thank you, Senator Coons. This is an excellent 
question. I think that the important thing when you bring in 
new materials into the infrastructure, they cost more to start 
with. So, oftentimes, they get set aside.
    Senator Coons. Right.
    Dr. Dagher. However, if you start looking at lifecycle 
analysis of these systems, whether it is due to resiliency, 
reducing the carbon footprint, if we can start implementing 
lifecycle analysis more in our transportation infrastructure 
planning systems that is when the new materials start to shine.
    Senator Coons. I spent a decade as a county elected 
responsible for our county sewer system and discovered that our 
wonderful engineers were very cautious and not very good at 
lifecycle costing. And so innovations were slow to be adopted. 
I would love to work with you and with your great colleague 
from Maine more on that. I appreciate your referencing the 
Climate Solutions Caucus in your introduction.
    And the last piece of climate resiliency I will mention 
before I close, Mr. Chairman, is the Civilian Climate Corps. We 
just introduced legislation to authorize it. It would put to 
work thousands and thousands of young Americans in doing the 
kind of natural solutions to provide resilient infrastructure 
work that we need done, so the human side, as well as the 
materials side.
    Thank you so much for the chance to question several of our 
witnesses today, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations on your first 
hearing as chair.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you, Senator Coons.
    Senator Boozman.
    Senator Boozman. Thank you, Chairman Schatz, and Ranking 
Member Collins for having this important hearing. And again, 
congratulations on your new assignment, posting, I know that 
you and Ranking Member Collins are going to be a great team. We 
miss you at VA MILCON, but like I said, I know you are going to 
do a great job, and look forward to working with both of you, 
continue working with you on such important issues. So 
congratulations.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you.
    Senator Boozman. Secretary Trottenberg, we have a situation 
in Memphis, the Memphis Bridge. I think it is a great example 
that we do have significant infrastructure problems in our 
country. And this has come about, as you know, in the last few 
days where we have actually had the close the bridge, this is a 
very, very high trafficked corridor, 30 percent of the vehicles 
that go are commerce related, and actually had to close the 
river as a result of this.
    So it really is a high stakes thing. One thing that I would 
really like for you to look at is if we could use a model like 
we used in Minnesota where we, you know, actually that bridge 
collapsed and we were able to rebuild it, you know, in around a 
year, where it normally would have probably taken 15 years.
    But by the agencies working together, not the gotcha 
attitude but, you know, the attitude of, how can we help? How 
can we facilitate things? So I know that you are going to be 
doing that. But I would just emphasize how important that is, 
not only to that region of the country, you know, being a 
North-South Corridor, but really for the entire country.
    Ms. Trottenberg. Thank you, Senator Boozman. And certainly 
we have been following what is happening and in communication, 
I think with the DOTs in Arkansas and Tennessee, and 
recognizing it is affecting vehicular traffic and barge 
traffic.
    Senator Boozman. Right.
    Ms. Trottenberg. So, you know, stand ready to work with you 
and see what solutions we can come up with quickly as possible. 
We agree, it is a very critical situation for a very important 
route.
    Senator Boozman. Right. Well, we appreciate your help. And 
again, appreciate your staff's help that does a very, very good 
job.
    Certainly green infrastructure has a place in--you know, as 
we go forward in constructing new infrastructure, taking care 
of the old, I think we have to be really careful thought about 
a one-size-fits-all approach. Sometimes we get ourselves in 
that that situation. Communities need to do rigorous analysis 
of the cost and benefits of installing various technologies and 
decide for themselves the most appropriate course of action.
    As we seek to build transportation assets that are more 
resilient, states and communities are looking at the 
interaction of different project features to improve 
resiliency. As part of this, would you agree there is a role 
for both gray and green infrastructure going forward? And can 
you explain your reasoning in that regard?
    Ms. Trottenberg. I couldn't agree more, Senator. I mean, 
there is absolutely a no one-size-fits-all. And, you know, 
certainly I can just speak a little bit from my recent 
experience in New York City to sort of retrofit, you know, 
major urban infrastructure is very, very complicated. And there 
places where you can have green solutions, but that is 
certainly not going to work everywhere.
    In places where you can use those green or nature-based 
solutions, it can often be not only less expensive, but 
potentially offer some co-benefits if you are shoring up a 
shoreline, it might provide beach, or fishing, or other 
recreational opportunities. But there is no one size fits all.
    And certainly, Senator, I think you are right. Local 
communities obviously have to have, you know, a big role in 
figuring out how to do this. And I can at least speak from the 
New York City point of view, it is not easy. You know, coming 
up with the right estimates of costs and benefits, which 
technologies to use, you know, requires, I think, a lot of good 
analysis and lot of expertise.
    Senator Boozman. One of the areas that I think that we have 
been successful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions our bus 
fleets that use natural gas. In Arkansas the Rock Region METRO 
operates 58 buses along 26 routes each week using compressed 
natural gas. The remaining buses that are powered by diesel, 
but those will be converted by 2025.
    Can you talk a little bit about the place for natural gas 
vehicles? And it does make sense, like I say some of the huge 
gains that we have made so far have been in that area. And how 
does DOT plan to ensure local transit agencies can receive 
funding for the types of vehicles that meet their unique needs 
of the area?
    Ms. Trottenberg. I apologize, Senator. There was sort of a 
strange electronic noise, and you faded out there just at the 
end of your question.
    Senator Boozman. Well, I said, you know, how does DOT plan 
to ensure that these areas that are using things like natural 
gas, going forward, how can you meet their needs? Arkansas is 
blessed with a lot of natural gas.
    Ms. Trottenberg. Yes.
    Senator Boozman. You know, it is kind of a no brainer to 
use that, that technology and that fuel.
    Ms. Trottenberg. I mean I think, you know, again, it is no 
secret that the administration--look we are seeking as best we 
can to get to a zero emissions transportation system by 2050. 
There are a lot of different ways to get there. Clearly, one 
focus of this administration is going to be electrification, 
but of course we are looking, you know, at different regions 
and different cities that are using different solutions that 
can help us get there.
    We are not going to electrify overnight but, you know, we 
certainly want to work on the ground, particularly with local 
transit systems as, you know, bus fleets can take 15, 20 years 
to turn over.
    Senator Boozman. Right.
    Ms. Trottenberg. So as you are working through new 
technologies and new procurements we want to work with you to 
try and find the way to make that fleet as green as possible.
    Senator Boozman. Thank you very much. We appreciate you.
    Ms. Trottenberg. Thank you.
    Senator Schatz. I understand Senator Reed may be available 
online. He is chairing an Armed Services Committee, so it is 
unclear whether he is available at the moment.
    Senator Reed.
    Senator Reed.
    [No response.]
    Senator Schatz. If not, Senator Murphy.
    Do we have Senator Capito online?
    [No response.]
    Okay. I will move on to my own questions, as we work out 
who is available online.
    Oh, Senator Murphy, are you ready for your questions?
    Senator Murphy. Go ahead.
    Senator Schatz. I can vamp for a moment.
    Here you go, all right. Secretary Trottenberg, your 
testimony highlights that 40 percent of the climate investments 
in the American Jobs Plan will flow to underserved communities. 
How do you make sure that the states meet this goal given the 
discretion that they have under our current statute?
    Ms. Trottenberg. It is a good question. And I want to just 
emphasize that that 40 percent, you know, to be clear, I think 
sometimes people hear it and they think we are just talking 
about perhaps urban areas, but underserved communities can be 
rural areas, tribal areas. I think there are a lot of different 
parts of the country that we envision these investments could 
really help, parts of the country that have perhaps not shared 
in, you know, the prosperity that the rest of the country has.
    So I think, just to be clear, sort of a broad definition of 
those underserved communities, and I think part of our work 
together with Congress as we craft reauthorization and American 
Jobs Plan legislation is defined how we can, you know, sort of 
bake in that very important priority.
    And I think it can be done in a number of ways: through how 
formula funds flow, and discretionary funds, where there are 
contracting opportunities. You know, I think there are a 
variety of ways that we can make sure that underserved 
communities get the benefits of the investments of Federal 
dollars, and the climate, and mobility, and equity benefits 
that flow from those investments.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you. Ms. Repko, the GAO issued a 
disaster resiliency, a framework to serve as a guide for the 
Federal government's response to disasters. What weaknesses did 
you find in the coordination of disaster recovery efforts 
between DOT and FEMA, and what are the recommendations to 
remedy those weaknesses?
    Ms. Repko. Thank you, Senator. Broadly coordination has 
been a challenge across--that we have looked at across all of 
our disaster recovery work. You find it between states, locals, 
tribes, and territories expressing a lot of frustrations about 
how to coordinate things. Specifically related to DOT and FEMA, 
our work on the 2017 hurricanes found that there were 
coordination issues, some duplicate payments where DOT and FEMA 
paid applicants for the same expense. It was a small amount, 
and we have made recommendations that they have adapted to 
change that.
    But I think it shows that coordination is really a 
challenge in these situations and, you know, I would go back to 
the Disaster Resilience Framework as a way that the Federal 
government could help here. Think about integration, think 
about how we can coordinate these programs, think about how 
they be on similar timeframes, that there can be one place 
where people can go to ask questions because you don't want to 
create more challenges for states and locals in an already 
challenging situation.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you very much.
    We will now move on to Senator Braun.
    Senator Braun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Last Congress--this question is for Secretary Trottenberg--
the EPW Committee passed the largest infrastructure bill in 
history. It provided 287 billion in funding over 5 years, had 
several new provisions promoting resilient infrastructure. 
Question: the original authorization of the FAST Act expired in 
2020 and was extended through this summer, and Congress has got 
to reauthorize it again this year. Why was a reauthorization 
not included in the President's infrastructure bill?
    Ms. Trottenberg. Thank you for that question, Senator. And 
I think, as you know, the American Jobs Plan, admittedly, was 
sort of assuming a reauthorization, and it was a proposal that 
would go above and beyond that. But really I think that the 
administration is operating on two tracks. We are putting 
forward our American Jobs Plan, but also--and Senator Capito 
just entered the room--I think we are--the President is in 
earnest discussions with some of your colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle about what a potential reauthorization bill would 
look like. So I think we are pursuing both tracks.
    Senator Braun. So I think it would be good, even though we 
are pursuing both tracks, to make the one a certainty because 
we don't know how the bigger shot in the arm is going to pan 
out. Also begs the question, back in 2017 in Indiana, and you 
have got states that I think are actually doing a more 
responsible job for their share of infrastructure because they 
are pinning it to a definitive source of funding.
    Then we got stakeholders throughout our state, mostly 
businesses, ended up raising the diesel tax by $0.20 a gallon, 
gas by 10, put us a five-year stream of income out there that 
was dependable. And the only thing dependable here that I can 
see is that we are going to be borrowing money for the host of 
things that are out there. We never really had that point of 
view on infrastructure. We always kind of had it dedicated.
    And I think the last time there has been any adjustment to 
the dedicated source of funding has been 1993. A couple of 
ideas: maybe that ought to be looked at again, even though most 
Hoosiers want a better infrastructure, didn't want their taxes 
to go up, that is common on anything, but it took political 
will, and even for somebody like myself as a fiscal 
conservative, to sell it. We did get 48 out of 50 of 
stakeholders that said, yes, if you will spend it on roads and 
bridges, roads and bridges, not a host of other things, our 
fuel tax--our sales tax on fuel was being spent for everything 
else. We brought all 7 percent of that back to roads and 
bridges as well.
    Where are you at on getting a dependable stream on a 
tangible thing like infrastructure, rather than this idea that 
we can keep borrowing out of the general fund when we used to 
do it otherwise?
    Ms. Trottenberg. Thank you. And look, Senator, it is no 
secret. We have struggled here in Washington for several 
decades now to sort of come together on a sustainable revenue 
source. And you all know here in Congress, in the past 10 
years, we have added a lot of general funds into the--into the 
Highway Trust Fund, the gap between expenditures and what we 
are taking in is now around $10 billion a year.
    You know, admittedly, I think that there is perhaps a 
difference of opinion about where we go from here. The 
administration has proposed a corporate tax rate increase. 
Although I think the President has signaled that, you know, it 
is something he is certainly open to negotiations on. He has 
not supported something like raising the gas tax, he is not 
wanting to see, you know, taxes go up on middle-class families. 
But, again, I think he has signaled, certainly, a readiness to 
engage with you all on that hardy challenging question.
    Senator Braun. So would you want to be on record today to 
do what we did back in Indiana, to raise diesel taxes by $0.20 
a gallon, and gas by 10?
    Ms. Trottenberg. I would not be on the record on that. 
Again, I will follow the lead of the President that, you know, 
he has made his corporate tax proposals but, again, signaled 
the willingness, I think, to negotiate and engage with you all.
    Senator Braun. I brought this up in another infrastructure 
discussion, and I think it is worthy of consideration too. The 
Federal balance sheet, I wrestled with Chairman Sanders on the 
floor last night about it, it is as bad as it has ever been. 
You know, we are in debt way more deeply than we were coming 
out of World War II. I cited then we were savers and investors, 
we are generally spenders and consumers now.
    Would you consider states, they live within balanced 
budgets, generally have rainy day funds, plan ahead, and make 
those tough decisions? What about giving more Federal dollars 
to states that would actually carry a heavier share than their 
conventional 20 percent? Is that an idea you think would maybe 
be a way to stretch the Federal dollar, skin in the game for 
states?
    Ms. Trottenberg. Right. We actually, I think, already do 
that more on transit side of the ledger. When you look at the 
CIG program, sort of, the local share is, you know, one of the 
factors and, typically, in transit projects the local share is 
going to be more than 20 percent. We have done less of that on 
the highway side. Certainly, I think those are discussions. I 
know that, sort of, we are like here in the last administration 
and, again, certainly worth looking at. I think as an 
administration, we think skin in the game is important.
    Senator Braun. Thank you. And I would consider that on 
roads and bridges as well. So, thank you.
    Senator Schatz. Senator Murphy.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate the hearing.
    I actually want to pick up where Senator Braun left off 
because I have a similar concern. You had, I think, a dialogue 
earlier with Senator Coons about the Northeast Rail Corridor 
which is perpetually at flood risk. We have got a 10-year-old 
train station in Branford, Connecticut, that has a sign posted 
outside of it, ``Parking Area, Prone to Flooding''. And there 
are lots of days where you cannot get into that parking lot. 
You cannot access the trains because it is underwater and there 
have been exhaustive studies about the vulnerability of the 
entire line, given that so much of it rests, especially in 
Connecticut, right along the water.
    But to Senator Braun's point, I want to make sure that when 
it comes to what may be a historic investment in the Northeast 
Corridor, that we ask states to do their fair share. Listen, I 
think we have got a-once-in-a-lifetime chance to be able to 
adapt the rail line for climate, but also to be able to improve 
the experience of riders. And I am going to support as big an 
appropriation as possible, but I think it would be a lot easier 
to get bipartisan support and taxpayer buy-in with respect to 
the rail investments, if we find some mechanisms to get state 
buy-in.
    And this is a little different than transit, obviously, the 
Jobs Plan has a transit component to it, but then it has a 
specific Amtrak component to it. And just by virtue of the fact 
that the busiest stretch of Amtrak is in the Northeast, much of 
that funding will find its way to our area.
    So I will ask this question in the frame of resiliency, 
because much of the money for Amtrak will be used to build 
resiliency, and maybe it is the same answer as you had for 
Senator Braun. But how do we make sure that that Amtrak money, 
which is going to be spent in part on resiliency, leverages 
state buy-in, and does not just replace state expenditures or 
state partnerships with Amtrak to improve the reliability of 
the line?
    Ms. Trottenberg. A very important question. And I do just 
want to make clear, I think the--excuse me--the proposal for 
rail funding, although certainly a good portion of it would go 
for the Northeast Corridor, it is certainly envisioned that 
would be making rail investments all over the country. Just 
want to be clear on that point.
    And look, a good example that I know you are very familiar 
with, Senator, what we are doing on the Hudson River Tunnel, 
which is so important for the whole Northeast Corridor line. 
And certainly, you know, calling on both New York State and New 
Jersey to be, you know, financial participants and real 
partners at the table. And that is clearly a model.
    And as you know, in recent years, Amtrak and the states 
have worked out, you know, a more thoughtful set of cost-
sharing relationships. So I think there are some good templates 
in place there. You know, we should be force multipliers, 
Federal dollars and state dollars as well.
    Senator Murphy. Great.
    A second question; and I will direct this to you, Ms. 
Repko. I would love the Secretary's input as well. On the topic 
of what is referred to as green infrastructure, the idea that 
you can use dunes, and wetlands, and oyster reefs to protect 
shorelines from flooding. Now Vice President Harris and I had a 
piece of legislation called the Living Shorelines Act, which 
would try to incentivize both state, and local, and Federal 
funding into these kinds of projects.
    And my sense is that we are really good at building gray 
infrastructure, hard infrastructure, because green 
infrastructure, like reefs or dunes, you know, just don't have 
as much engineering experience behind them. That it is a little 
bit harder to imagine because you do not have as many folks who 
have done them. But they provide enormous benefit because they 
are helping to protect shorelines, but they are also doing a 
pretty good job at enhancing ecosystems, and protecting 
habitats.
    So I do not know if any of your, sort of, work has revolved 
around this issue of how you incentivize green infrastructure. 
And I would certainly love the Secretary's input on whether the 
Department has thought about how to promote those kinds of 
projects.
    Ms. Repko. Thank you for the question, Senator. One of the 
examples that we do cite is more of a green infrastructure 
project that is happening in Delaware. I think that, really, 
the Federal government has certain levers that they can pull as 
it relates to disaster resilience. And some of that relates to 
information, which I think is very important, having a set of 
climate information that is consistent, that folks at the state 
and local government can use to make their projections, and 
also having design standards.
    Those are two open recommendations that we have because at 
the Federal government. Again, we don't build as much. We give 
a lot of this to the states; we need to give them a roadmap 
that helps them get to a place that is easier. Folks have been 
doing other infrastructure projects that did not have 
resilience in it for years. They do have experience with that. 
We need to make it easier for them to make this shift.
    Senator Murphy. I am over my time, Mr. Chairman. But those 
design standards are something I think would be really 
important to think about, especially for these projects that 
happen with less frequency, but have pretty tremendous upside. 
Thank you.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you, Senator Murphy.
    Senator Capito.
    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all 
for being here today. And I am sorry I was not here for the 
beginning of the remarks. So if this has already been covered, 
I apologize for that.
    You know, we talk about mitigation, and building back 
better, and mitigating natural disasters. And we have two folks 
testifying, one from Maine and one from Hawaii, very different 
types of disasters. Well, I am from West Virginia and, you 
know, we are not going to have a tsunami--well, if we do we are 
all gone, in West Virginia, but we do have very drastic and 
very devastating floods. We had a flood in 2016 that killed 23 
people. It was very rapid, very sad.
    So I guess I would like to ask first, Ms. Repko--and by the 
way, I know your sister and she is doing a great job. What 
unique challenges, how do you formulate?
    Or let me start with you, Ms. Trottenberg. How do you 
formulate different resiliency strategies when there are so 
many different types of disasters for different types of 
terrains, for different types of folks? Isn't that where we 
ought to really empower our states more maybe? And is that what 
you are doing presently?
    Ms. Trottenberg. It is a great question. And you are 
absolutely right. You know, we talk a lot about coastal areas, 
but you are certainly right, in West Virginia, Vermont, other 
places, devastating flooding. Absolutely, it is, it is 
empowering states, it is empowering localities, as I said in my 
testimony, really interdisciplinary. I don't think any one part 
of government holds all the answers.
    You know, a lot of these projects are very complicated. You 
know, as Senator Murphy was asking about things like sort of 
different green infrastructure that often pulls in not just 
traditional transportation agencies, but environmental 
agencies. So I think it has to be quite an interdisciplinary 
partnership to get it right. And, you know, I think at DOT, 
between Federal Highways and Federal Transit, we are trying 
very much to work with local partners on the ground, but, you 
know, we also need feedback in ways that we can do that better 
and be more tailored in our solutions.
    Senator Capito. Ms. Repko.
    Ms. Repko. Absolutely agree with you. I think one thing 
that is important to think about is that resilience is not one 
thing. And I think sometimes people want to think: oh, define 
resilience, what is that? It is site specific, it is condition 
specific and it is projects specific, depending on how long of 
an investment we are thinking of having. And absolutely, I 
think that we envision, through the Disaster Resilience 
Framework, having the Federal government play a role where you 
empower states and locals, you help them coordinate, you 
provide incentives, such as reducing administrative costs, to 
be able to build these projects.
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    Dr. Dagher, let me ask you this. I think one of the 
daunting challenges here is that there is a perception--and it 
may be real--that building to resilience and using green 
building practices is more expensive, exponentially more 
expensive. And I know you are from Maine and obviously deal 
with that, but you also do a lot with the composites. Is there 
any way that you can help me with that? Because I think that 
would help formulate policy better if you didn't feel like, 
well, we are going to be spending three times as much on this 
rebuild and are we going to get back, you know, the investment 
that we have? Do you have any perspectives on that?
    Dr. Dagher. An excellent question. Thank you for asking 
that. If you look at the decisions that we make in terms of 
whether we rebuild a bridge, or build it a bit better, there 
are simple examples that we will show you that you can save a 
lot of money.
    For example, if you could figure it out that these five 
bridges are in the flood zone, and the next time around they 
might be washed away, and spending some money to raise them a 
little bit rather than wait until they get washed away, is an 
example where investing in a long-term solution saves money. 
The data has shown actually, and it has been cited a little 
earlier that you can save almost $6 for every dollar you spend 
on resiliency under certain conditions.
    So in Maine, for example, and in our transportation center, 
we are looking at working with Vermont right now to look at the 
flooding that is taking place, in their bridges, and studying 
the watersheds, and identifying which bridges are next to go if 
there is another storm. And we are focusing on these bridges 
and investing in them so that we could--we can focus the 
investment, yet have the biggest bang for the buck.
    Senator Capito. Well, I am glad you brought up bridges, 
because we have so many deficient bridges throughout the 
country. And certainly in my small state we have so many 
bridges, and so many of them are--well, they are safe, but they 
are deteriorating. And so that is part of what we are trying to 
work on in the highway bills as we work through that.
    But thank you all very much.
    Dr. Dagher. Thank you.
    Senator Moore Capito. Thank you.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you.
    Senator Van Hollen.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank all of 
you for your testimony.
    I think we all recognize that we have to focus on stopping 
climate change and the huge disruptive impact and cost of 
climate change. But, I want to thank the chairman and ranking 
member for holding this hearing, because at the same time we do 
have to deal with the resilience piece, because we are already 
experiencing the costs of climate change, and if we don't adapt 
we will both lose more lives than necessary, and we also will 
waste a lot of taxpayer dollars in the process.
    We have seen from this attack on the Colonial Pipeline that 
we have to harden our cyber infrastructure. We have to make 
sure we harden our other infrastructure. And in the Obama 
administration they adopted a Federal flood risk management 
standard.
    And, Ms. Repko, you mentioned the earlier reports in the 
2019 GAO Report, GAO wrote this, ``Additionally, we have 
reported that implementing the January 2015 Federal Flood Risk 
Management Standard, which required all future Federal 
investments in and affecting floodplains to meet a certain 
elevation level, would have enhanced Federal flood resilience 
by ensuring agencies addressed current and future flood risk.'' 
I assume the GAO still holds that position. Is that right?
    Ms. Repko. Thank you, Senator. You know, part of the 
Disaster Resilience Framework is you want to have the best 
information that you can have about disaster risk and climate 
risk, and you want to have design standards that build through 
that.
    Senator Van Hollen. Right. And that is what those standards 
did?
    Ms. Repko. Mm-hmm.
    Senator Van Hollen. Is that right?
    Ms. Repko. Yes.
    Senator Van Hollen. And as you point out in this 2019 
report, and I am just quoting, ``However, since the Executive 
Order 13807 was rescinded in August 2017, the Federal 
government has not taking any further action as of December 
2020.''
    So the Trump administration rescinded the executive order 
that input in place by the Obama administration. In fact, the 
chairman, Senator Schatz, and Senator Booker, and I then 
introduced legislation here in Congress to codify that rule. We 
introduced it last year. My hope is, and we do intend to 
reintroduce that, but my hope is that the administration can 
move forward.
    So Deputy Secretary Trottenberg, I am just reading from a 
piece that probably you saw, it is just, you know, The New York 
times piece. And it points out that, on the first day of a new 
presidency, the President said he was going to reinstate this 
Obama rule to save taxpayer dollars, but that the 
administration reversed itself last month saying that Mr. 
Biden's order did not in fact reinstate the flood rule, and 
that no reason was given.
    I am hoping maybe today you can provide a reason, and also 
assure us that the administration will reinstate that rule.
    Ms. Trottenberg. I think I will be cautious in giving a 
reason. Look, I am well aware, you know, having served in the 
Obama administration, you know, the significance of that rule, 
and what happened in the last administration. I think I would 
like to come back to you Senator with a little more, I think, 
clarity on what this administration's plans are going to be on 
that front.
    Senator Van Hollen. I would appreciate that. Because you 
would agree--you were a part of the previous administration. 
You would agree that this was a smart policy to implement, 
would you not?
    Ms. Trottenberg. Yes.
    Senator Van Hollen. Yeah, yeah. It is, yeah, it is a little 
confusing why this has not happened already. So I do intend to 
move forward with the legislation, but hopefully that will be 
more of an insurance policy, and also make sure that future 
administrations, you know, cannot just reverse what has 
happened.
    Could you talk a little bit about how the Federal 
government can use its tools to leverage states and local 
jurisdictions to also contribute to this effort?
    The chairman pointed out in his opening remarks, the huge 
cost of doing this, right, and pointed out that, you know, the 
proposal from the President, it is good, it is a lot better 
than where we are, but it is not nearly sufficient. So we have 
to leverage both state and private sector funding. Can you just 
talk briefly about some ideas for how we might use that 
leverage at the Federal level?
    Ms. Trottenberg. You know, you are right, Senator, the 
costs are large. And, you know, in part, I think--I am hearing 
from some of my fellow panelists today, you know, part of the 
challenge is making sure that we sort of get the math right, 
that we are doing the right benefit-cost analysis, that we are 
picking the projects that really make sense, that they are 
bring the--sort of the benefits. You were mentioning it, a 6 to 
1 ratio that those investments are smart, but you are also 
right. And, and some of your colleagues have mentioned it 
today.
    You know, we always, I think want with Federal dollars, to 
try and incentivize, as you point out, not just state and local 
partners, but private partners to come to the table as well. 
And that means I think we have to work in real partnership 
also. Obviously, we have to, you know, bring our expertise and 
our incentives to the table but, you know, respect our 
partners, and take their views, and their priorities as well.
    You know, certainly the Colonial Pipeline is a good--you 
know, a good, sort of, perhaps learning experience for us and 
is going to make us, I think, think in some new ways about, 
particularly how we partner with private sectors, owners and 
operators of infrastructure, because they are an enormous piece 
of the puzzle here. They don't necessarily get Federal funds, 
but we need to be working more closely with them.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. And I would appreciate it, 
if you can get back to me on the reinstatement of the Obama 
Flood Standard ruling
    Ms. Trottenberg. Will do, Senator.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
    Senator Schatz. Senator Hoeven.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    To Deputy Secretary Trottenberg; in North Dakota we have 
the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and in the south unit of 
the park we have what we call the Scenic Loop. It is about a 
23-mile loop going through the park, and you can see bison and, 
you know, wild horses, and just all different kind of wildlife. 
And it is very scenic and very beautiful.
    Because of the Badlands out there, and the Buttes, and the 
amazing topography section of that road has slid off the side 
of the Canyon basically, or the side of the Butte, I should 
say. We worked with Secretary Bernhardt to get going on 
restoration of the road, but it is very important because that 
is such a beautiful, scenic loop, and so many visitors use it 
every year.
    Right now it is under a design, it is in the design phase. 
So the Central Federal Lands Highway Division of the Federal 
Highway Administration is working with the park service. They 
are designing it. They hope to have that design done by the end 
of year, but we need to get it repaired as soon as we can 
because it is so integral to the park.
    So I guess my question is: when there is a road 
reconstruction project, such as the one that I have just 
described, where there is minimal to no excavation, minimal 
disturbance, and a preexisting right of way, how can DOT, EPA 
and other Federal agencies, work together to streamline the 
regulatory process and get this fixed as soon as possible?
    Ms. Trottenberg. Thank you, Senator. And I am aware of that 
project and the importance of it. And look, we certainly try in 
projects as you are describing where, sort of, there is minimal 
change in the footprint and the design to use categorical 
exclusions. We also try and do that for projects involved in 
emergency relief. I think it sounds like here we have some of 
our sister agencies involved and, you know, happy again to 
follow up with you all. You know, again, have been briefed on 
the importance of that project and certainly want to make sure 
we get it right, but do it quickly.
    Senator Hoeven. Well, thank you. And your answer actually 
anticipated my very next question, which is that, you know, 
will you work with my office to make sure that we are 
coordinating and doing that as rapidly as possible, so 
hopefully we will get it completed by next year?
    Ms. Trottenberg. Yes. Happy to do so.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you. Also, Senator Ron Wyden who 
chairs the Finance Committee, and I, have the Move America Act 
which would be a very good candidate to be part of the 
infrastructure package. Essentially it allows tax--states to 
use private activity bonds for tax exempt financing, or 
actually they can use a tax credit to draw equity investors in 
to really leverage Federal funding for infrastructure.
    And so I guess my question. Do you think there is a role 
for private sector to play in addressing infrastructure needs 
through something like the Move America program?
    Ms. Trottenberg. I mean, certainly do. And thank you. I 
know you and Senator Wyden, and others here in Congress have 
had some very creative ideas on that front. You know, DOT, we 
have our Build America Bureau and, you know, out of that we run 
our credit programs. And I think we are always looking for more 
creative and innovative ways that we can bring private 
investment, you know, into our infrastructure.
    As we were saying earlier in this hearing, the private 
sector has a big role to play here, a lot of our infrastructure 
is privately owned and operated, and they can be great partners 
in some of these projects.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you. And if you would even expand on 
that a little bit with P3, one of the P3 projects we are doing 
right now is the Red River Valley Flood Protection Project, 
which is actually a multi-state project between North Dakota, 
Minnesota, the Red River of the North, and it is about a $3 
billion project, but actually the Federal cost share is only 35 
percent because we are using P3.
    And a lot of it will be that it is a local state Federal 
partnership along with the private sector, which is expedited 
in the construction, and we hope to have it done in 6 years, 
and reducing the Federal cost share to 35 percent. So, talk for 
a minute about your feelings in regard to using P3, public-
private partnerships, as we undertake our infrastructure needs.
    Ms. Trottenberg. I mean, I think that is a great example, 
and there are certainly places, we have seen them all over the 
country where, you know, bringing in a private sector partner 
can reduce the public share. I will just say, you know, I want 
to be cautious. One thing we do often hear, for example, in 
some rural areas is, you know, those deals can be complicated 
to put together. They aren't necessarily the revenue streams 
that bring the private sector partners to the table. So 
important tool, but I do want to be mindful. You know, there 
are places where it is going to work, and places where it may 
not be the right strategy.
    Senator Hoeven. Exactly, that is right on. Again, then I go 
back to Move America, why it is important to provide either the 
financing or the tax incentive, tax credit incentive to bring 
that private equity in. And so I think you make an important 
point. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Schatz. Senator Reed.
    Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 
ranking member for allowing me to arrive from the Arms Services 
Committee, where I was residing.
    Deputy Secretary Trottenberg, the pipeline hack has 
revealed the complex regulatory structure we have for 
pipelines. In your Department the pipeline has this material 
safety administration, FTSA, regulates certain aspects of this, 
but other responsibilities are under the Department of Homeland 
Security, TSA.
    Can you discuss this collaboration between your agency and 
Homeland Security? Should we integrate those functions, 
particularly with respect to cyber? And what can we do 
ultimately about increasing security?
    Ms. Trottenberg. Thank you for that question. And clearly 
as we have, I think, in real time, you know, the administration 
has been responding to the Colonial Pipeline situation, and it 
has raised those very questions. I think I am happy to say, at 
least in the case of this very urgent situation, you know, 
again, we have had a whole-of-government approach. I think DOT, 
Department of Energy, Department of Defense, and Homeland 
Security, we have all worked very, very closely together.
    But you are right, Senator, different agencies sort of have 
different pieces of the puzzle. You know, DOT and FMCSA, our 
pipeline administration, particularly focused on the physical 
infrastructure, and to some degree the operational aspects. And 
then, you know, DHS, for example, involved in the cybersecurity 
piece. And in the case of this particular cyberattack, those 
two pieces came together.
    And I think going forward, obviously, the President has put 
out an executive order for us to be taking a deep look at 
cybersecurity, and we need to get it right, and we need to be 
integrated. I think there will be some good thinking, you know, 
in the coming weeks and months about how we do that better and 
obviously, you know, interested in the views of you all here on 
The Hill. We want to make sure agencies bring their relevant 
expertise to the table, but that we are not stove-piped. And 
that, you know, we are getting to holistic solution.
    Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
    And both to you, Madam Secretary and Ms. Repko; we 
understand the challenges of climate change, seawater rise, 
they particularly impact construction of infrastructure. We are 
about to do, we hope, a major infrastructure plan, but one of 
the problems is just understanding the risk precisely of--
particularly for planning and construction project that is 
going to last 30 years.
    What exactly is the highest probability prediction in terms 
of the water rising? And Rhode Island, that is a critical issue 
because, as Senator Theodore Francis Green says, in response to 
the question, how big is your Island? It depends on high tide 
or low tide. So we are very concerned about that. But could you 
respond, Madam Secretary; and then Ms. Repko?
    Ms. Trottenberg. I think you have asked that the million- 
or the billion-dollar question, and one I grappled with as a 
local official in New York, getting that math right and 
understanding those probabilities is a huge challenge. And 
particularly because these climate events, from what we can 
see, they are growing more frequent, they are growing more 
severe. So even, you know, as the years go by that modeling can 
be changing pretty rapidly.
    Again, I think it is bringing a lot of different 
disciplines and experts to the table, local and state 
knowledge, and Federal expertise. You know, we have one of the 
foremost academics here. You sort of need, I think, a pretty 
interdisciplinary group, but it is an ongoing challenge, and 
one, I think, you know, we want--these investments can pay off, 
but they have to be made wisely. They have to be made in such a 
way that the benefits are going to greatly exceed the cost.
    Senator Reed. Thank you.
    Ms. Repko. Thank you, Senator. And I would say at the 
Federal level one gap that we could close is to have a more 
authoritative source of disaster risk information for folks to 
use. I think it is challenging when there are multiple sources 
out there, the sources are fragmented and they are used for 
different purposes within different agencies. And you want to 
make it as simple as you can for someone who is trying to make 
these changes, to know exactly what information to look at, and 
to know the design standards that they should apply that 
information to.
    Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
    I want to highlight and commend Senator Collins and my 
colleagues in a White House for the IMAGINE Act which is 
designed to improve materials and techniques for construction.
    And I understand, Dr. Dagher, that your--the fiberglass 
girders were in Rhode Island. So thanks a lot. I have probably 
driven over them a lot. But one of the things I have noticed is 
that the new construction techniques, and Rhode Island is a 
small place--the Director of Transportation is my high school 
classmate so we have a lot of sharing--but they have new 
techniques to build a bridge by the side of the old bridge, 
tear the old bridge down, slide the new one in overnight, and 
voila. So thank you for that. Any comments you might have on 
more that we have to do in that regard?
    Dr. Dagher. Absolutely. I think the important thing is to 
focus a lot of our decisions on lifecycle analysis rather than, 
what is the next bridge that falls apart. In the long run if we 
did that, we are going to save money, not only for ourselves, 
but as children and grandchildren as well. So the focus on at 
the Federal level on a policy side, to require more work in the 
lifecycle analysis as we make those investments, that will make 
these investments pay off better.
    Senator Reed. Thank you very much. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Reed. Thanks.
    Senator Collins.
    Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is getting 
confusing.
    Ms. Repko, first though I want to thank you for your 
testimony where GAO sets for its certain policy options for us. 
Large rural, lower-income states face difficult challenges in 
funding their infrastructure. Given that many rural areas 
struggle to secure funding for just basic infrastructure needs, 
how would GAO recommend that rural states, rural communities, 
fund enhancements to infrastructure that would accomplish the 
goals of increased resiliency in the face of cyber threats, 
extreme weather events, and also lessen the environmental 
impact? Isn't that an awful lot to put on a large, rural, low-
income state?
    Ms. Repko. Thank you, Senator. I think it is an important 
question to think about communities because they face some real 
risks related to resilience, and also related to 
infrastructure. A lot of rural communities don't have as much 
redundancy in their infrastructure systems, and so if something 
goes, if they lose a bridge, they lose a road, they could be 
cut off. That means that people are cut off from leaving. It 
also means that folks are caught off from coming to help them.
    Also, there is administrative and capacity challenges, like 
you talked about. You may have--you may not have a lot of folks 
who are working on transportation, let alone a lot of folks who 
are working on resilient transportation. And so I think that is 
where parts of the framework come to place. And we asked the 
Federal government to think about those two things, think about 
vulnerabilities because they are very important, they are 
different for rural communities than they are for other 
communities. Think about capacity, and think if there are ways 
that we can use incentives.
    Are there ways that we can reduce administrative burdens? 
Are there ways that we can coordinate our activities so that it 
is easier for folks? Again, we want to make it as easy as it 
can be to build in resilience. We don't want to add challenges 
on top of an already challenging situation when folks may be 
facing a natural disaster.
    Senator Collins. Thank you.
    Dr. Dagher, your record of transforming research into real-
world applications is incredibly impressive. And it is one of 
the reasons that I have wanted to have you here today. I have 
been in your lab and I have seen the wave pool that you 
developed in order to test composite materials simulated in at-
sea conditions.
    I joined you when you unveiled, I believe it was the 
Nation's largest 3D printer, and you actually printed a little 
boat that we went out into the pool with. So one of the things 
that, to me, is so important about your research is that it is 
practical and you always look at the world, at the real life 
implications to the work that you are doing.
    Could you elaborate on the research that you are currently 
conducting, particularly through the Transportation 
Infrastructure Durability Center that has promise for 
infrastructure applications?
    Dr. Dagher. Thank you, Senator Collins. A very important 
question. I am going to give you some specific examples today 
that we are working on. As you know, Maine is a rural state, 
and if we lose a bridge, it may be another 50 or 100 miles 
before you can get to where you want to be because of that. And 
we have a lot of bridges we cannot really replace today. We 
just don't have the money to do so.
    Some of the bridges go on, what we call the post-it bridge 
list, and eventually get taken out of service. So we have a lot 
of bridges like that in Maine. So we ask ourselves, can we have 
a second opinion? Can we do a bit of a better job at going out 
there and looking at these bridges and see if we can actually 
extend their life?
    So we started a program under the Transportation 
Infrastructure Durability Center, where we have been able to 
actually save a lot of bridges from being post-it's, so the 
trucks don't have to go another 50 miles or 100 miles. And that 
is happening as we speak. About two-thirds of the bridges we 
have been looking at that would have been actually post-its now 
no longer need to be post-its. And what we do is we go out 
there and actually take a bunch of dump trucks for sand to the 
bridge and put sensors on it, and load it up to see if it has 
got more life than we think it is.
    And we do some numerical simulations, and go back to the 
DOT and say, hey, you can actually don't have to post this 
particular bridge. And that has worked out quite a few times on 
bridges in Canton, in Peru, Maine; in Jackson, in Alna, Maine; 
in Franklin and Unity, were all saved like that, and saved 
millions of dollars for the DOT.
    So extending the lives of existing bridges is one example 
that we are doing. We are also strengthening bridges. We are 
taking composite materials to bridges and see where they are 
weak, and then laminating composites under the underside of 
these bridges.
    The other thing we are doing, Senator Collins, is trying to 
figure out which bridges are getting worse and faster by having 
better inspection techniques. So we are developing drone 
technologies right now. We can take some drones to inspect the 
bridges, particularly the ones that are harder to get at, and 
get under the bridges with the drones. They are using very 
advanced sensors, including acoustic sensors that can actually 
identify if there are problems in these--in these bridges.
    So all of those are examples, Senator Collins, that the 
Transportation Center and the University Transportation Centers 
helping us do, that we appreciate the Federal DOT support, and 
hope we can continue to make those kinds of investments at the 
Federal level.
    Senator Collins. I am sure the Secretary is taking notes on 
all of this. But that is fascinating. So I think what you are 
telling me is there are certain bridges that would have been 
post-it, and thus big trucks would not have been allowed on 
them, would have had to do very long detours to deliver their 
products, or pick up their materials. And you are able to more 
precisely identify which bridges truly need to be posted. And 
then in some cases you are actually strengthening the bridges 
using composite materials to do so?
    Dr. Dagher. That is exactly correct, Senator Collins. So 
bridges that otherwise would have been gone on post-it list, 
now don't have to go on the post-it list. It is almost like 
going to the doctor and saying, can you give me a second 
opinion? Do I really need this operation or not? And we are 
able to have a second-opinion team that is working with the DOT 
that goes and evaluates these bridges, and oftentimes they 
don't have to be replaced, at least for now--or post-it.
    Senator Collins. And then that allows us to concentrate on 
the ones that really do need to be replaced and are either 
structurally deficient, or functionally obsolete, or both, and 
focus our resources there, and using the new materials that you 
have developed is just extraordinary because it is going to 
extend the life of the new bridges, and in some cases I am told 
to over a hundred years.
    Dr. Dagher. That is exactly right, Senator Collins. And we 
are developing designs from materials that will last 100 years. 
And what is really important is that at the Federal policy 
level, we incentivize the state to look at lifecycle analysis, 
because you may pay a little bit more, or maybe you pay 10 or 
20 percent more to get started. But if the bridge is going to 
last twice as long, it makes economic sense.
    But those decisions at the Federal--need to be incentivized 
at the state level. So we start looking at lifecycle analysis. 
We start looking at, for example, LEED bridges as well. So we 
have LEED home, right, and agree--there is LEED and green 
homes, and LEED Gold, and so on, and so forth. Could we have 
LEED bridges? Could we start looking at transportation 
infrastructure like we look at homes today, and look at that? 
All of those long-term, if you wish, policy decisions that we 
make help inform the investments that we make today and reduce 
costs to society, so----
    Senator Collins. Thank you so much. And given the amount of 
money that we spend each year on Federal disaster assistance; I 
think Ms. Repko, you said it was a 524 billion since 2005, if 
we can spend a little more money upfront and avoid that cost, 
as well as looking at the lifecycle costs, we may, in fact, end 
up spending less money.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; a very good to hearing.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you very much. I have one final 
question for Mr. Sniffen. And I only have a minute or two 
because I have to go and preside. And so I will make it quick. 
Has AASHTO developed any design or engineering standards to 
make a resiliency--to make sure resiliency is incorporated into 
new projects? And what recommendations do you have for shifting 
the culture at state DOTs?
    Mr. Sniffen. So we have not set the policies for the DOTs, 
fully understanding that each state has its own needs to fill. 
So what we will do is make sure that all the states have the 
tools, and the techniques to make sure that they can address 
their resiliency needs. So we set together, a toolbox for 
everybody, that is virtual that everybody can access, and we 
make sure that we pool up our resources to ensure that we test 
these different approaches in the system, make sure that 
everybody understands, or could share out the information that 
they have, or that they have created for their states.
    Now for us, we would always recommend that resiliency be 
baked into your every operation. For Hawaii it does not make 
sense for us to create a resiliency program that competes with 
the safety system preservation, and capacity, and congestion. 
It made sense for us to ensure that all of those different 
programs include resiliency in there. So we don't include 
resiliency projects in our portfolio; each project is 
resilient.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you very much. I want to thank our 
staff, the ranking member, all of the members, and especially 
the testifiers. This was a really constructive hearing.
    And it occurs to me that although we have a lot of work to 
do on, on this side of the dais, one of the most constructive 
things that may be able to happen, going forward, is if the 
four, the testifiers would continue a dialogue because the 
opportunity for cross-pollination of really smart ideas is 
really extraordinary. A great hearing.

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    Thank you for coming to discuss this critical topic. The 
record will remain open until Friday May 21st, to allow members 
to submit additional questions for the record.
             Questions Submitted to Hon. Polly Trottenberg
            Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
    Question. When Tropical Storm Irene swept through Vermont in 
September 2011, seven inches of rain fell on the state over the course 
of two days. In the aftermath, towns across Vermont began replacing the 
nearly 1000 destroyed pipe culverts with larger culverts that could 
handle higher streamflow, as required by Vermont statute. Some 
municipalities who applied to have these culvert replacements financed 
through FEMA's Public Assistance program had trouble accessing this 
funding or had their funding applications rejected. Culverts are a 
critical part of the highway network in Vermont, and culvert failures 
can shut down entire highway stretches. Vermont has over 45,000 
culverts with a total replacement need of approximately $500 million. 
By supporting states' investments in culvert replacement, we can ensure 
that our infrastructure and waterways can withstand increased rainfall 
and streamflow while reducing significant hardship and rebuilding 
expenses in the event of a natural disaster.
    How do you plan to equip state and local transportation agencies 
with culvert replacements and incentivize proactive action to make 
their infrastructure more resilient?
    Answer. Hurricane Irene and other recent storms have demonstrated 
the toll that extreme weather events can take on our nation's 
infrastructure. USDOT and FHWA support States' investments in culvert 
replacement and other proactive resilience investments to reduce the 
vulnerability of our transportation infrastructure to climate change. 
Each State faces its own unique challenges, but many best practices 
exist that can be applied nationwide.
    When it comes to flooding and our roadways, the Department is 
developing tools, providing technical assistance to States and 
metropolitan areas, funding pilot projects, and facilitating 
information exchange among local transportation agencies. The 
Department serves as a resource to transportation agencies and provides 
options on the many ways they can build resilience into the planning, 
construction, operation, and maintenance of transportation projects. We 
will continue collaborating with Federal, State, Tribal, and local 
agencies on the shared goal of a transportation system that provides 
safe mobility under current and future conditions, supporting the 
Nation's economy and quality of life.
    In addition, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law includes $1 billion 
for a National Culvert Removal, Replacement, and Restoration Program to 
provide grants to States, local governments, and Tribes to address 
anadromous fish passage as well as provide funding for certain 
freshwater impacts to marine fish and shellfish species.
    Question. Will the Department consider greater flexibility for 
states when rebuilding our country's highways and roads, or is further 
Congressional authorization necessary?
    Answer. The FHWA's Emergency Relief (ER) Program provides funding 
and flexibility for States to repair roads damaged by declared 
disasters. FHWA has efforts underway to ensure that both our Division 
Offices and partner agencies are aware of all existing opportunities to 
improve resilience when rebuilding.
    The FHWA encourages State DOTs (with FHWA Division Office support) 
to consider ways to improve resilience when rebuilding assets. There 
are two ways that ER funds can be used to improve resilience when 
repairing or rebuilding a damaged highway or bridge following an 
eligible event: (1) repair the facilities to current design standards 
rather than rebuilding in-kind; and (2) rebuild with added protective 
features--a ``betterment''--if economically justified to save ER 
program funds over time by preventing future recurring damage. If the 
State DOT plans to fund a betterment that is not economically justified 
under the ER program, the State DOT may use ER funding up to the cost 
of repairing to current standards; the State DOT may then elect to use 
other Federal funding to make up the difference in project cost, 
including Surface Transportation Block Grant program funding.
    FHWA has provided guidance on ER and resilience in an Information 
Memorandum entitled, ``Integration of Resilient Infrastructure in the 
Emergency Relief Program.'' This 2019 memorandum provides clarity on 
how States can incorporate resilience into their ER program funded 
projects and details a process that FHWA and its stakeholders should 
follow for integrating resilience into all ER Program decisions.
    In addition, FHWA plans to compile resilience case studies from ER 
repair projects nationwide. These case studies will highlight efforts 
to incorporate resilience into ER eligible repair projects. FHWA plans 
to publish these case studies to help FHWA Divisions and other agencies 
apply best practices for resilience. Both efforts will provide 
direction and promote consistency for FHWA Division offices and State 
DOTs on incorporating resilience into ER programs.
    In addition, FHWA already supports State DOTs considering extreme 
events, climate change, and resilience in their installation and 
replacement of highway assets under our existing Federal-aid programs. 
For example, FHWA's asset management regulation requires identification 
of risks that can affect condition of National Highway System (NHS) 
pavements and bridges and performance of the NHS, including risks 
associated with current and future environmental conditions, such as 
extreme weather events and climate change. States are encouraged, but 
not required, to include all other NHS infrastructure assets within the 
right-of-way corridor and assets on other public roads in their risk-
based asset management plan. FHWA also has developed technical manuals 
and training to help State DOTs to understand and apply climate and 
resilience concepts and approaches.
    The Department recommends that State DOTs take a proactive approach 
that addresses vulnerabilities before an emergency occurs and that does 
not rely on the ER Program. Rather than waiting for a disaster to 
damage a facility, a proactive approach protects the traveling public, 
prevents damage and disruption, and saves money. We now have a system 
in place for States to identify facilities damaged multiple times by 
disasters, and consider more resilient alternatives when planning 
repairs or replacement. Regular FHWA program funds can be used for 
activities to plan, design, and construct highways to adapt to current 
and future weather events. For instance, planning and research funds 
can be used to conduct a vulnerability assessment and analysis of 
adaptation options. This allows State DOTs to identify and address 
vulnerabilities before disasters occur.
    Lastly, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law authorized the Promoting 
Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient and Cost Saving 
Transportation (PROTECT) program, which will provide $7.3 billion in 
formula funding to states and $1.4 billion in competitive grants to 
eligible entities to increase the resilience of our transportation 
system. Among other eligibilities, the PROTECT program provides funding 
for evacuation routes, coastal resilience, or efforts to move 
infrastructure to nearby locations not continuously impacted by extreme 
weather and natural disasters.
    Question. In Vermont, one of the greatest challenges posed by 
climate change on our surface transportation infrastructure is 
flooding. As weather patterns change and rainstorms grow more intense, 
water levels in rivers and stream across the state have fluctuated more 
intensely and unpredictably. Often, green infrastructure can be an 
effective way to mitigate the damage caused by excessive flooding.
    How would you incentivize the incorporation of natural 
infrastructure and other flood mitigation methods into infrastructure 
repair and rebuilding projects that receive Federal funding, and how 
would you help state and local governments to better assess the 
feasibility and impact of green infrastructure investments to enhance 
transportation resiliency?
    Answer. USDOT and FHWA encourage the use of natural or nature-based 
solutions, where appropriate, when rebuilding and repairing 
infrastructure. Marshes, dunes, reefs, beaches, mangroves, forests, and 
native vegetation can dissipate wave energy and reduce flooding. 
Natural features also provide benefits beyond flood protection, such as 
benefits to habitat, commercial fisheries, recreation, and water 
quality.
    FHWA has published an implementation guide to help State DOTs, 
other Federal agencies, and local transportation authorities to deploy 
nature-based solutions to address the vulnerabilities of coastal 
highway assets. The implementation guide summarizes the potential 
flood-reduction benefits and co-benefits of these strategies. It 
follows the steps in the project delivery process, providing guidance 
on how to consider nature-based solutions in the planning process, how 
to conduct a site assessment to determine whether nature-based 
solutions are appropriate, key engineering and ecological design 
considerations, permitting approaches, construction considerations, and 
monitoring and maintenance strategies.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) authorized the Promoting 
Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient and Cost Saving 
Transportation (PROTECT) program, which will provide $7.3 billion in 
formula funding to states and $1.4 billion in competitive grants to 
eligible entities to increase the resilience of our transportation 
system. Among other eligibilities, the PROTECT program provides funding 
for evacuation routes, coastal resilience, natural infrastructure 
elements, or efforts to move infrastructure to nearby locations not 
continuously impacted by extreme weather and natural disasters.
    Question. Natural disasters can severely impact transportation 
networks. In the hours and days following a major event, knowing the 
location and extent of the damage are crucial. Unmanned Aircraft 
Systems (UAS) can play a vital role in helping transportation and 
recovery officials prioritize response and recovery efforts. The 
University of Vermont's (UVM's) Transportation Research Center (TRC) 
has demonstrated a direct, real world application of UAS technology. 
One example being how the Spatial Analysis Lab at UVM's TRC deployed 
UAS to support recovery efforts after Amtrak's Vermonter derailment in 
2015. UAS have additional benefits when it comes to surveying 
infrastructure rural areas that are thought to be inaccessible as well 
as a way to help evaluate the structural deficiencies that are plaguing 
our country's bridges.
    How does the Department of Transportation plan on further utilizing 
UAS technology to make our Nation's transportation infrastructure more 
resilient specifically in rural areas?
    Answer. Through the FAA's Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) 
Integration Pilot Program or IPP, UAS were used to support a number of 
disaster response and recovery efforts. For example, the Choctaw Nation 
of Oklahoma, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Virginia conducted 
operations that provided aerial imagery to help assessment teams 
evaluate storm impacts, identify repair efforts, direct emergency 
responders, and divert traffic away from damaged roads and bridges. UAS 
have also proven themselves to be invaluable tools when it comes to 
linear infrastructure (rail/pipeline) and facility inspections, 
especially in rural areas. However, in order to realize the full 
potential of these operations, the FAA is exploring beyond visual line-
of-sight (BVLOS) operations without visual observers that are 
repeatable, scalable, and economically viable across rural, suburban, 
and urban environments.
    Although BVLOS operations occur today, these flights are performed 
under waivers or exemptions to the existing FAA regulations (14 CFR 
part 107, part 91, part 135, etc.). Approvals are made on a case-by-
case basis, which is time consuming and cumbersome for operators and 
the FAA. Moving from one-off approvals to the predictability of 
operating by rule will encourage further innovation in this emerging 
field.
    On June 9, the FAA announced the formation of a new Aviation 
Rulemaking Committee or ARC to help the Agency develop a regulatory 
path for routine BVLOS UAS operations. This is a big step forward and 
will help pave the way for routine package delivery, infrastructure 
inspection, and other more complex UAS operations.
    However, DOT supports the responsible use of UAS in our surface 
modes as well. For instance, FHWA has supported State DOT investments 
in developing their UAS Program capabilities through multiple 
approaches. Over the last 3 years, FHWA has provided direct funding to 
State DOTs in excess of $4 million through State Transportation 
Innovation Council (STIC) and Accelerated Innovation Deployment (AID) 
projects. This investment has supported 37 State DOTs in their 
advancement of their capabilities, including Emergency Response and 
Infrastructure Inspection activities.
    FHWA has also used the Every Day Counts program to provide 
technical training, publications, peer exchanges, and other outreach 
activities over the last 2 years to support State, Local, and Tribal 
governments as they deploy UAS focused on key activities such as 
Construction Inspection, Structural Inspection, and Emergency Response. 
These efforts have resulted in 45 States reporting an increase in their 
UAS capabilities. FHWA plans to continue deployment of UAS to support 
surface transportation activities nationwide and will continue to 
engage our traditional State partners along with local. Specific uses, 
including an October 2020 Webinar on this topic can be found on the 
FHWA UAS website https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/uas/.

                                 ______
                                 

               Questions Submitted by Senator Joe Manchin
    Question. This past weekend, a cybersecurity attack forced the 
closure of the largest fuel pipeline in the United States. Colonial 
Pipeline Company closed its entire 5,500 mile conduit carrying gasoline 
and other fuels from the Gulf Coast to New York after it was the target 
of a ransomware attack on its network. This is deeply troubling. I am 
glad that the White House announced two days ago that it was forming an 
interagency task force in response to the Colonial ransomware attack, 
but it highlights a broader issue. The Transportation Security 
Administration (TSA), though it falls under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), but is incredibly relevant to 
the resiliency of our nation's transportation infrastructure. A 2019 
GAO report noted that only 6 staff at TSA were responsible for 
reviewing the cybersecurity performed by approximately 2.5 million 
miles of pipeline and 3000 pipeline companies across the U.S. These 
same weaknesses were documented by the Congressional Research Service 
in 2012, and yet nothing has been done.
    This glaring issue with little overview and confusion as to why 
pipelines and other infrastructure fall under TSA highlights a larger 
question:
    What is being done to address the threat of cyber-attacks on our 
existing nation's infrastructure, whether it be as small as traffic 
lights being interrupted or as large as entire systems being shut down 
or held ransom?
    Answer. The DOT's top priority is transportation safety. Our 
Nation's transportation system faces persistent and increasingly 
sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns that threaten the public 
sector, the private sector, and ultimately the American people's 
safety, security, and privacy.
    DOT regularly participates in National Security Council-led 
meetings to address cybersecurity, including policy development to 
address ransomware and critical infrastructure cybersecurity. DOT and 
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are Co-Sector Risk Management 
Agencies (Co-SRMAs) for the Transportation Systems critical 
infrastructure sector. DOT and DHS jointly share information or address 
actions related to the sector, including by encouraging sector 
stakeholders to adopt the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework (the Framework) that was 
created through collaboration between industry and government, as well 
as by developing or sharing cybersecurity information, tools, and 
references adapted to sector needs for stakeholders' use. The Framework 
consists of standards, guidelines, and practices created to promote the 
protection of critical information and communications technology 
infrastructure. In March 2021, DOT and DHS conducted an assessment of 
stakeholders' awareness and use of the Framework. These efforts, among 
other interagency coordination, help spur industry to reduce their 
cyber risks and identify opportunities for enhancing their existing 
cyber risk management programs.
    DOT has also been collaborating with the DHS Cybersecurity and 
Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and NIST on establishing a common 
baseline of cyber performance goals for critical infrastructure control 
systems, which will be finalized in summer 2022. DOT will also be 
contributing to subsequent transportation sector-specific cybersecurity 
performance goals, which will build upon the common baseline. More 
information can be found here:
    https://www.cisa.gov/control-systems-goals-and-objectives
    Further, DOT serves as a principal member of the Transportation 
Security Oversight Board (TSOB), led by DHS and established under the 
Aviation and Transportation Security Act, to provide guidance regarding 
transportation security-related matters. As a TSOB member, DOT is 
responsible for reviewing and ratifying or disapproving emergency 
regulations or security directives issued by TSA, including security 
directives that TSA issued in 2021 for pipelines, railroads, and rail 
transit. In light of DOT's Co- SRMA role alongside DHS and TSOB 
membership, DOT regularly coordinates with DHS/TSA counterparts and is 
well-positioned to prompt and establish necessary interagency 
coordination processes amongst key stakeholders to facilitate quick 
information sharing and response.
    Question. If the TSA can't do its job, and it isn't even included 
in the interagency task force on this issue, why is it even in charge 
of pipeline cybersecurity?
    Answer. Securing and protecting our nation's critical energy 
infrastructure from cyber threats and attacks requires a whole of 
government approach. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration (PHMSA) coordinates and collaborates on common issues of 
concerns--including cyber and physical security, safety, and energy 
supplies--with DHS, TSA, DOE, FBI, and other agencies as appropriate.
    Additionally, if DOT directly receives notice of a cyberattack or a 
ransomware payment from a pipeline owner or operator, the most 
immediate step is to ensure that the owner or operator report such 
incidents to the DHS Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security
    Agency (CISA). In addition, PPD-41 outlines the standing process 
for interagency coordination among key federal agencies.
    Although DOT is aware of or coordinating on numerous relevant 
engagements that TSA facilitates for cybersecurity issues, DOT defers 
to TSA to address the extent of its leadership on pipeline 
cybersecurity issues.
    Question. West Virginia has been hard hit in recent years by 
extreme weather that has severely impacted local communities. In 2016, 
there was a tragic 1,000-year flood that devastated West Virginia, 
leaving 23 dead, thousands of homes and businesses destroyed, half a 
million residents without power, and $46 million worth of damaged 
roads. In the community of Elkview, the flooding caused the only bridge 
that connected the Elkview Crossing mall to the town to come crashing 
down, trapping people, harming the local economy, and starting a long 
process of building a new bridge. Communities still feel the impact of 
that flood today.
    According to the US Army Corps of Engineers 2021 Infrastructure 
Report Card, 21% of bridges in West Virginia are structurally 
deficient, well above the national average of just over 7%. Further, 
31% of West Virginia roads are in poor condition. Each motorist pays 
$726 per year in costs due to driving on roads in need of repair. The 
lack of resilience directly impacts both daily life and the pockets of 
hard-working West Virginians.
    Can you speak to any work being done to review how potential 
infrastructure spending can be implemented in a way that focuses on 
resilience?
    Answer. The Administration is committed to rebuilding our 
infrastructure to make it more resilient to weather-related challenges, 
not just building roads and bridges back to the way things were. It is 
important to modernize highways, roads, and main streets, not only 
``fixing them first'' but ``fixing them right,'' with safety, 
resilience, and all users in mind. Critical investments in our Nation's 
transportation infrastructure will enable States and communities to 
make infrastructure more resilient and less vulnerable to tragic events 
like the 2016 flood in West Virginia.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) authorized the Promoting 
Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient and Cost Saving 
Transportation (PROTECT) program, which will provide $7.3 billion in 
formula funding to states and $1.4 billion in competitive grants to 
eligible entities to increase the resilience of our transportation 
system. Among other eligibilities, the PROTECT program provides funding 
for evacuation routes, coastal resilience, or efforts to move 
infrastructure to nearby locations not continuously impacted by extreme 
weather and natural disasters.
    Moreover, both the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and 
U.S. DOT Office of Inspector General (IG) have conducted reviews of how 
infrastructure spending can be implemented in a way that focuses on 
resilience. The GAO conducted a review that addresses actions taken and 
options to further enhance the climate resilience of federally funded 
roads.\1\ FHWA provided information in support of this review and 
concurred with the GAO's recommendations to consider how to implement 
options to enhance the climate resilience of federally funded roads 
when prioritizing actions on climate change, as called for in Executive 
Order 14008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ For more information see: https://www.gao.gov/assets/720/
714305.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Department is also looking beyond the GAO and IG reviews to 
identify and address additional opportunities in our climate resilience 
practices. For example, as part of our implementation of EO 14008, DOT 
is identifying opportunities to incorporate resilience into DOT grant 
and loan programs. In addition, we are working closely with our 
partners at the local, state, and regional levels to determine how we 
can best assist them as they make investment decisions in support of 
resilience. DOT is also moving forward with implementation of the 
Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS), reestablished by 
Executive Order 14030. The Department is reviewing and updating, as 
appropriate, DOT policies, regulations, and procedures to account for 
the reinstated FFRMS, which requires all future federal investments in 
and affecting floodplains to meet the level of resilience established 
by the Standard.
    Question. What can my office be doing to ensure that Federal, 
State, and Local stakeholders are all involved in the process to review 
old and new infrastructure projects?
    Answer. Stakeholder participation is critical in reviewing old and 
new infrastructure to identify and prioritize potential 
vulnerabilities. Institutional knowledge of government agencies, on-
the-ground inspections by public agency staff, and local knowledge 
andexperiences from nearby communities are all important in assessing a 
transportation system's vulnerability and adaptability to climate 
effects. Encouraging the State DOT, Tribal, and local transportation 
agencies to take a stakeholder input approach, as described in FHWA's 
Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Framework, allows practitioners 
to capture information that may not be apparent in records or desk-
based analysis. The stakeholder input approach can help inform the 
responsible agency's decisions as it considers adaptation strategies 
for those assets deemed vulnerable and as it works to incorporate 
resilience into work processes and programs.
    In addition, public involvement remains a hallmark of the 
transportation planning process. It has always been important for 
transportation planners to understand the perspective of their 
constituents, listen to the voices of elected officials, advocates, and 
stakeholders as they devise transportation plans and programs.
    In general, however, there are two opportunities for public 
engagement in reviewing transportation infrastructure projects. The 
first is the official Public Participation Plan typically carried out 
by the Metropolitan Planning Organizations or Regional Transportation 
Planning Organizations. This process establishes a framework for 
relevant stakeholders to influence both long-term transportation policy 
development and short-term transportation programming. The second 
significant opportunity for public engagement also may be included in 
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for environmental 
reviews. For certain actions, NEPA requires agencies to seek input from 
stakeholders and the public throughout the development of the 
transportation project to better inform the evaluation of the 
environmental impacts resulting from proposed Federal actions. This 
would include impacts resulting from climate change.
    Question. Have you identified any projects that could be used as a 
model for protecting and repairing our bridges and roads, particularly 
focusing on rural communities?
    Answer. FHWA has partnered with upwards of 50 resilience pilot 
project teams across the country to conduct climate change and extreme 
weather vulnerability assessments of transportation infrastructure and 
to analyze options for improving resilience. These projects vary in 
scope and emphasis and include: state-wide vulnerability assessments, 
analyses of engineering options for improving resilience of specific 
road segments, analysis of opportunities to protect assets by mimicking 
nature, incorporating climate risks into asset management, and 
deploying and monitoring adaptation solutions. Many of these projects 
can provide useful insights and approaches to resilience for 
communities across the country. However, resilience solutions are often 
dependent on the specific circumstances and characteristics of the 
transportation facility and location.
    Nonetheless, FHWA has identified general strategies to make 
infrastructure more resilient, including:

  --Building stronger or better, or retrofitting existing 
        infrastructure to accommodate changes in the climate.

  --Adding redundancy to the network by building new links or routes

  --Relocating transportation assets to less vulnerable locations.

  --Utilizing maintenance or operational strategies to increase 
        transportation system resilience and help people cope with 
        disruptions.

    These resilience strategies may be introduced in the transportation 
planning process, and then carried through other stages of 
transportation decision-making, including project development and 
design. In addition, resilience strategies will often have co- benefits 
with other goals. For instance, designing culverts to allow discharge 
of larger floods could also improve fish passage, helping restore 
aquatic ecosystems. Nature- based strategies can have co-benefits for 
recreation and habitat protection--which are often meaningful parts of 
rural economies.
    Question. In 2015, a catastrophic failure of a mechanically 
stabilized earth retention structure, known as the runway safety area, 
caused a landslide at Yeager Airport in Charleston West Virginia. More 
than 540,000 cubic yards of fill slid across a roadway, onto a church, 
and into a creek. It took four years at $25 million to rebuild the 
runway safety area.
    West Virginia is not alone in fighting the impacts of either poorly 
constructed transportation projects or natural disasters that have 
wiped away vital lifelines for our communities.
    With airports being a crucial part of both urban and rural 
communities, what work is being done to review the resiliency of 
airport projects in the country and mitigate potential failures like 
the one we saw at Yeager Airport?
    Answer. Climate change is a threat to existing and planned airport 
infrastructure and operations across the country. In addition to sea 
level rise and coastal flooding, shifting weather patterns, such as 
extreme heat, may necessitate climate resilience measures where a need 
did not previously exist.
    The FAA is working to evaluate and mitigate the risks of sea level 
rise and other impacts of climate change on FAA infrastructure and the 
ability to safely operate the National Air Space. In response to 
Executive Order 14008, USDOT, along with other Federal agencies, 
developed a Climate Action Plan for Resilience. In support of this 
plan, FAA will be providing preliminary recommendations regarding 
identifying airports that need additional resilience investments, 
including urgent hot spots such as Hawaii and Alaska. In addition, the 
FAA is leading an effort to develop an implementation plan for a 
national airport strategy to provide a top-down framework for 
investments in airport infrastructure, including resilience.
    Airport resilience is a particularly urgent issue in many rural 
communities, which often lack the options and redundancy found in urban 
transportation networks. For these communities, a single regional 
airport may be a critical access point to the rest of the country.
    Question. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee (ENR) held a 
hearing last month on how to maintain reliable, resilient, and 
affordable energy amid the changing mix and more frequent extreme 
weather events. No source of energy is 100% immune to weather 
disruptions, and we need to be investing in smart and strategic 
upgrades to weatherization and infrastructure like transmission and 
pipelines. While Pipelines fall under the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS), the relationship between energy and transportation is 
present. Whether it be its impact on prices, spills on roadways, or 
train derailment, Energy and Transportation go hand in hand.
    Is there interagency work and research being conducted on how to 
secure our transportation networks, including the systems we use to 
transport materials and our natural resources?
    Answer. The DOT's top priority is transportation safety. In line 
with DOT's authorities, DOT coordinates with DHS, who has the lead on 
transportation security matters.
    However, there are many collaborative research efforts underway 
involving transportation agencies, academia, and the private sector to 
better understand the vulnerabilities of our nation's transportation 
networks and secure them in the face of climate change and extreme 
weather events. For example, in partnership with the Transportation 
Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences, USDOT/FHWA has 
sponsored a series of conferences to bring together transportation 
practitioners from across the country to exchange information on 
emerging best practices on how to adapt surface transportation networks 
to the potential impacts of natural disasters and extreme weather 
events. This collaboration has promoted dialogue on research, 
implementation, and lessons learned on this important topic, with 
benefits that are expected to extend beyond the transportation sector. 
In addition, the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Committee on Transportation Systems 
Security & Resilience (CTSSR) coordinates national efforts, identifies 
best practices, and fills research gaps to promote resilient and secure 
transportation systems across the country. The TSSR Committee addresses 
preparation for and response to both natural and human-made threats, 
shocks, and stressors to the transportation system. The Committee 
provides a forum for state DOT members to advance state-of-the-practice 
and awareness of transportation infrastructure security and resilience 
through training, technical assistance, and the exchange of information 
and best practices. TSSR relies on the cross-disciplinary membership of 
the Committee-which highlights the interdependencies of emergency 
management, planning, design, environment, maintenance, and operations 
in the resilience cycle-to oversee the development of technical 
expertise and tools for state DOTs to perform risk-based identification 
of potential impacts, plan for system adaptation needs, and prepare for 
response and recovery of impacted transportation systems.
    Further, DOT serves as a principal member of the Transportation 
Security Oversight Board (TSOB), led by DHS and established under the 
Aviation and Transportation Security Act, to provide guidance regarding 
transportation security-related matters. As a TSOB member, DOT is 
responsible for reviewing and ratifying or disapproving emergency 
regulations or security directives issued by TSA, including the 
recently issued pipeline security directives. In light of DOT's Co-SRMA 
role alongside DHS and TSOB membership, DOT regularly coordinates with 
DHS/TSA counterparts and is well-positioned to prompt and establish 
necessary interagency coordination processes amongst key stakeholders 
to facilitate quick information sharing and response.
    Question. What can my office be doing to help these discussions, 
reach important stakeholders and communities to ensure projects are 
community-minded and are looking at long-term resilience?
    Answer. DOT is committed to working with stakeholders and 
communities to ensure projects are community-minded and are aimed for 
long-term resilience. For certain Federal actions, DOT utilizes our 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) public engagement process to 
seek the maximum amount of public participation by utilizing 
appropriate outreach methods to ensure that all stakeholders and 
impacted communities are made aware of the project and provided an 
opportunity to submit their feedback and input prior to the Department 
making a final decision about a project. DOT is committed to working 
with your office to ensure important stakeholders are engaged.

                                 ______
                                 

             Question Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
    Question. The U.S. Department of Transportation's University 
Transportation Centers program, or UTC program, awards grants to 
consortia of colleges and universities across the United States. In 
2018, the UTC program awarded funding to the University of Maine to 
lead the Transportation Infrastructure Durability Center, which brings 
together the expertise of New England state DOTs and universities.
    How can partnerships like the Transportation Infrastructure 
Durability Center be further supported in order to encourage more 
research in innovative transportation materials and construction 
techniques or other research that assists with disaster recovery and 
transportation resiliency?
    Answer. DOT invests in the future of transportation through its 
University Transportation Centers (UTC) Program, which awards and 
administers grants to consortia of colleges and universities across the 
United States-such as the Transportation Infrastructure Durability 
Center led by the University of Maine. The congressionally-mandated 
program has established an impressive track record in helping to 
address our Nation's ever-growing need for the safe, efficient, and 
sustainable movement of people and goods.
    The UTC Program advances state-of-the-art transportation research 
and technology, and develops the next generation of transportation 
professionals. This makes the UTC Program ideally suited to assist with 
the challenge of ensuring our transportation system is resilient in the 
face of climate change. We will continue to encourage UTCs to conduct 
innovative research and technology transfer on the topics of disaster 
recovery and transportation resilience. The UTC Program already 
requires a non-Federal match, which attracts support from state DOTs 
and the private sector, and we continue to encourage UTCs to leverage 
partnerships to increase their effectiveness.
    In addition, Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) 
infrastructure research and development (R&D) is concerned with all 
aspects of highway infrastructure engineering and management, including 
optimization for both traditional and innovative materials and designs; 
performance evaluation and prediction; construction; life-cycle cost 
analysis; and the environmental and sustainability aspects and 
implications of highway infrastructure. FHWA's infrastructure research 
contributes to agency-wide efforts to achieve Infrastructure R&T goals 
and strategic objectives.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted to Ms. Elizabeth Repko
            Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
    Question. Throughout the testimony you provided to the Committee, 
it has become clear that greater proactive investment in data 
collection and more regular structural assessments of existing surface 
infrastructure can help transportation agencies avoid unnecessary 
repairs and costs, as well as preventable damage in the event of a 
natural disaster. How can Congress and the Department of Transportation 
better design programs and better allocate funds to assist and 
encourage state and local transportation agencies to collect and 
utilize data more effectively and conduct proactive structural and 
resilience assessments?
    Answer. GAO's 2019 Disaster Resilience Framework identifies 
opportunities for Congress and the Department of Transportation to 
enhance the climate resilience of transportation infrastructure. 
According to the framework, investments in disaster resilience are a 
promising avenue to address federal fiscal exposure because such 
investments offer the opportunity to reduce the overall impact of 
disasters. Accessing information that is authoritative and 
understandable can help decision makers identify current and future 
disaster and climate-related risks. Federal efforts to provide 
technical assistance to help decision makers interpret available risk 
information and analyze alternatives for risk reduction are 
particularly important for smaller, low- income, and historically 
disadvantaged jurisdictions, which may not have other avenues to access 
this kind of expertise.
    However, obtaining and sharing climate information, data, and 
analysis to aid in resilience efforts has historically been a 
challenge. For example, in November 2015, GAO reported that the climate 
information needs of federal, state, local, and private sector decision 
makers were not being fully met, while the federal government's own 
climate data-composed of observational records from satellites and 
weather stations and projections from climate models-were fragmented 
across individual agencies that use the information in different ways 
to meet their missions. GAO recommended that the Executive Office of 
the President direct a federal entity to develop a set of authoritative 
climate change projections and observations and create a national 
climate information system with defined roles for federal agencies and 
nonfederal entities. As of December 2020, the office has not yet taken 
action to implement these recommendations.

                                 ______
                                 

               Questions Submitted by Senator Joe Manchin
    Question. West Virginia has been hard hit in recent years by 
extreme weather that has severely impacted local communities. In 2016, 
there was a tragic 1,000-year flood that devastated West Virginia, 
leaving 23 dead, thousands of homes and businesses destroyed, half a 
million residents without power, and $46 million worth of damaged 
roads. In the community of Elkview, the flooding caused the only bridge 
connected the Elkview Crossing mall to the town to come crashing down, 
trapping people, harming the local economy, and starting a long process 
of building a new bridge. Communities still feel the impact of that 
flood today. According to the US Army Corps of Engineers 2021 
Infrastructure Report Card, 21% of bridges in West Virginia are 
structurally deficient, well above the national average of just over 
7%. Further, 31% of West Virginia roads are in poor condition. Each 
motorist pays $726 per year in costs due to driving on roads in need of 
repair. The lack of resilience directly impacts both daily life and the 
pockets of hard working West Virginians.
    Can you speak to any work being done to review how potential 
infrastructure spending can be implemented in a way that focuses on 
resilience?
    Answer. GAO has work underway examining (1) efforts the Federal 
Highway Administration (FHWA) has made to enhance the climate 
resilience of federally funded roads during the past 10 years, and (2) 
the strengths and limitations of options to further enhance the climate 
resilience of federally funded roads, according to knowledgeable 
stakeholders and relevant literature.
    As part of this ongoing work GAO identified-through a review of 
relevant literature and interviews with knowledgeable stakeholders-
options that could further enhance climate resilience of projects 
funded by the federal-aid highway program. Some of these options are 
similar to actions GAO has previously recommended. The options include 
both actions that FHWA might undertake on its own and those that might 
require congressional action. For example, according to FHWA officials, 
putting in place resilience funding requirements or imposing conditions 
or providing incentives related to resilience would likely require 
congressional action. However, options such as further integrating 
resilience into FHWA policy and guidance or establishing additional 
climate resilience planning or project requirements are examples of 
activities the agency could potentially undertake on its own, according 
to FHWA officials. GAO expects to publicly issue this report in 2021.
    Question. What can my office be doing to ensure that Federal, 
State, and Local stakeholders are all involved in the process to review 
old and new infrastructure projects?
    Answer. Congressional offices can encourage all stakeholders and 
the public to participate in their respective statewide transportation 
processes. To receive federal transportation funding, each state, as 
well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, is required to carry 
out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive statewide 
transportation planning process. The statewide transportation planning 
process addresses both urbanized and nonmetropolitan areas of the state 
and includes both highway and transit needs. For urbanized areas, 
defined in statute as areas with a population of 50,000 or more, state 
DOTs must coordinate planning activities with metropolitan planning 
organizations (MPOs)-federally recognized organizations representing 
local governments that lead transportation planning activities in 
metropolitan areas. For nonmetropolitan areas not covered by an MPO, 
states must consult with and provide opportunities for local officials 
to participate in statewide planning. Some states choose to fulfill 
this requirement by designating and consulting with rural 
transportation planning organizations, which are typically voluntary 
planning organizations that serve as a forum for local officials to 
develop consensus on regional transportation priorities. In some cases, 
rural planning organizations may serve a wide geographic area 
comprising multiple rural counties whose combined population may 
greatly exceed 50,000. States without rural planning organizations may 
consult directly with nonmetropolitan local officials with 
responsibility for transportation planning to fulfill their 
consultation requirements. The plans resulting from these processes are 
provided to FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Although 
states must comply with federal planning requirements administered 
jointly by FHWA and FTA to receive federal transportation funding, 
states have considerable discretion to allocate federal funds and 
select projects.
    Question. Have you identified any projects that could be used as a 
model for protecting and repairing our bridges and roads, particularly 
focusing on rural communities?
    Answer. Yes. GAO has work underway examining (1) efforts FHWA has 
made to enhance the climate resilience of federally funded roads during 
the past 10 years, and (2) the strengths and limitations of options to 
further enhance the climate resilience of federally funded roads, 
according to knowledgeable stakeholders and relevant literature. In 
this report, GAO plans to present information on projects that planned 
or made resilience enhancements using FHWA's resources. We expect to 
publicly issue this report in 2021.
    Question. In 2015, a catastrophic failure of a mechanically 
stabilized earth retention structure, known as the runway safety area, 
caused a landslide at Yeager Airport in Charleston, West Virginia. More 
than 540,000 cubic yards of fill slid across a roadway, onto a church, 
and into a creek. It took four years at $25 million to rebuild the 
runway safety area. West Virginia is not alone in fighting the impacts 
of either poorly constructed transportation projects or natural 
disasters that have wiped away vital lifelines for our communities. 
With airports being a crucial part of both urban and rural communities, 
what work is being done to review the resiliency of airport projects in 
the country and mitigate potential failures like the one we saw at 
Yeager Airport?
    Answer. Airports and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are 
taking initial steps to determine how local climate change may affect 
airport resilience by assessing risks and vulnerabilities, developing 
mitigation measures, and integrating resilience into their capital 
plans. For example, Airports Council International (ACI) members 
adopted a resolution in 2018 recognizing the potential impact of 
climate change on airport infrastructure and operations, and encouraged 
airports to conduct risk assessments, develop mitigation measures and 
communication channels, and take climate resilience and adaptation into 
consideration in their capital planning. Resources to help airports 
accomplish these efforts include the Airport Cooperative Research 
Program's (ACRP) airport climate resilience reports and tools, which 
can help airports to develop an adaptation plan through setting goals, 
identifying critical assets, and prioritizing risks.\1\ FAA is also 
conducting research on how climate change may affect runway length.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ACRP, Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience (2012); Climate 
Resilience and Benefit-Cost Analysis: A Handbook for Airports (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Airports' efforts to build greater resilience into their 
infrastructure will require coordination and cooperation with airport 
stakeholders and surrounding communities. For example, some measures, 
such as building seawalls, may involve infrastructure located off 
airport property, meaning that responses will require partnerships with 
stakeholders, including the localcommunity and government entities. One 
airport tackling this challenge is Honolulu International Airport 
(HNL), which is working with its local transportation planning 
organization to assess the potential effects of sea level rise on its 
transportation assets.
    Some federal funding is available to assist airports in their 
efforts. For example, according to FAA guidance, airport capital 
planning, including planning for improvements addressing environmental 
concerns are eligible for federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) 
grant funding, and FAA has included resilience as part of its Benefit-
Cost Analysis for airport capacity projects eligible for AIP funding. 
However, GAO's recent work on airport infrastructure funding found that 
airports face challenges in funding infrastructure projects and planned 
capital projects exceed revenues.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ GAO, Airport Infrastructure: Information on Funding and 
Financing for Planned Projects, Feb. 13, 2020 (GAO-20- 298).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee (ENR) held a 
hearing last month on how to maintain reliable, resilient, and 
affordable energy amid the changing mix and more frequent extreme 
weather events. No source of energy is 100% immune to weather 
disruptions and we need to be investing in smart and strategic upgrades 
to weatherization and infrastructure like transmission and pipelines. 
While Pipelines fall under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 
the relationship between energy and transportation is present. Whether 
it be its impact on prices, spills on roadways, or train derailment, 
Energy and Transportation go hand in hand.
    Is there interagency work and research being conducted on how to 
secure our transportation networks, including the systems we use to 
transport materials and our natural resources?
    Answer. The Department of Transportation (DOT) partners with other 
government agencies, academia, and private industry to carry out 
research activities through its nine modal administrations and a joint 
program office responsible for conducting DOT-wide research. DOT 
research supports technologies and policies that can help 
transportation agencies maximize the effectiveness of transportation 
investments on a variety of priorities, including to increase the 
resilience of the nation's transportation system. For example, DOT's 
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, through its 
Office of Pipeline Safety and the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, 
funds research that improves safety, supports supply reliability, and 
improves business and government productivity. More broadly, Executive 
Orders 14008 Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad (Jan. 27, 
2021) and 14030 Climate-Related Financial Risk (May 20, 2021) may 
result in interagency work on research on the topic, but how these 
Executive Orders are implemented will not be known for some time.
    Question. What can my office be doing to help these discussions, 
reach important stakeholders and communities to ensure projects are 
community-minded and are looking at long-term resilience?
    Answer. A key guiding principle of GAO's Disaster Resilience 
Framework is that integrated analysis and planning can help decision 
makers take coherent and coordinated actions. While the federal 
government shares authority with and provides resources to states, 
localities, and nongovernmental entities, it is these local entities 
that often make the decisions that result in greater resilience. The 
federal government can help these entities work toward a common vision 
and ensure focus on a wide variety of opportunities to reduce disaster 
risk by integrating strategic resilience goals across relevant national 
strategies. For example, in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, we observed 
that without comprehensive strategic approaches to help Congress and 
federal agencies that implement disaster resilience-related programs 
prioritize, align, and guide federal investments, the federal 
government's approach has been largely reactive.
    In addition, efforts by all stakeholders to understand the 
relationships among infrastructure components and ecosystems and how 
they interact with any proposed resilience project can help ensure that 
individual efforts work together effectively to maximize risk-reduction 
potential. For example, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood control 
project may affect water levels in multiple areas of a watershed and 
therefore may have an impact on multiple local jurisdictions. Moreover, 
damage to one aspect of infrastructure (e.g., part of a power grid) can 
trigger cascading failures, such as failures in other systems that rely 
on electric power, including telecommunications, ultimately disrupting 
communications, health, and other services. To help mitigate these 
risks, federal agencies can work together with their nonfederal 
partners to coordinate and enhance understanding of the relationship 
between various risk-reduction efforts and existing infrastructure 
assets.

                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted to Dr. Habib Dagher
            Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick L. Leahy
    Question. Throughout the testimony you provided to the Committee, 
it has become clear that greater proactive investment in data 
collection and more regular structural assessments of existing surface 
infrastructure can help transportation agencies avoid unnecessary 
repairs and costs, as well as preventable damage in the event of a 
natural disaster.
    How can Congress and the Department of Transportation better design 
programs and better allocate funds to assist and encourage state and 
local transportation agencies to collect and utilize data more 
effectively and conduct proactive structural and resilience 
assessments?
    Answer. State transportation agencies already engage in regular 
structural assessments of their bridge and transportation assets 
inventory. These assets are given ratings, and these ratings are used 
as a basis for decision making such as posting a bridge, repairing it, 
closing it or replacing it altogether. A major issue has been a lack of 
funding to carry on these repair or replacement programs. Our 
infrastructure has been aging faster than we have been fixing it.
    We have today increasingly better tools to assess our 
transportation inventory. With advances in drone technology, camera 
technology, digital image processing, new wireless sensor technology, 
AI, and massive computational power, we have an opportunity to collect 
and analyze a lot more data about our transportation assets, and to do 
that more safely, more frequently and potentially more cost-
effectively. We are doing some of this work at the TIDC University 
Transportation Center at UMaine, but more could be done in his space. 
We find that state DOTs welcome help on developing, assessing, and 
implementing these new technologies.
    One opportunity is to engage current Regional University 
Transportation Centers (UTCs) to conduct structural and resiliency 
assessment work alongside the DOTs, supplementing them with personnel 
resources and technology tools. For example, The Transportation 
Infrastructure Durability Center (TIDC) based at UMaine is working on 
resiliency assessment of bridge inventory in New England states to 
assess vulnerable bridges who are most at risk from future flooding, or 
those at risk from sea level rise and coastal storms. We found that 
DOTs welcome this help as they often lack resources or sophisticated 
tools to conduct these studies.
    By using the regional UTCs, we see an immediate opportunity where 
better data can be collected and better resilience models developed to 
assist state and local transportation agencies. The opportunity is to 
expand the role of existing regional University Transportation Centers 
so that they would work more closely with their State and local 
transportation agencies on data collection and infrastructure 
assessment. The regional UTCs can train and deploy hundreds of students 
to work side by side with DOTs, maintenance engineers and system 
planners to help in this massive data collection and development of 
local resilience assessment models. As part of the UTCs, these college 
students would be trained to use the newest data collection tools, 
drone technology, sensors, AI, data processing. They would apply these 
tools while in school by working with DOT staff, and become the trained 
transportation workforce that can work with the DOTs in the future.
    Under this proposal, the Regional UTCs would work together as part 
of this massive data collection effort learning from one another and 
from the DOTs they collaborate with. To accomplish this, we can suggest 
funding each regional UTC at $2 million/year for an initial period of 5 
years.

                                 ______
                                 

               Questions Submitted by Senator Joe Manchin
    Question. Since 1992, West Virginia University's Constructed 
Facilities Center (CFC) has been involved with the composites industry 
developing a wide range of polymer composite products in transportation 
infrastructure such as bridges, highways, waterways, and rail roads. 
These products are not only durable but also cost effective. For 
example, the East Lynne Bridge near Huntington, WV was rehabilitated 
with composite materials at 20% of the replacement costs and has been 
serving the public well since 2014.
    With respect to workforce development, the WVU CFC has employed 
low-security prisoners to help rehab Madison Avenue bridge in 
Huntington, WV in 2016. These rehab-and-repair techniques are 
standardized and relatively simple--to the extent that low-skilled 
workers can be trained easily to work on improving the ratings of WV 
bridges, school buildings and railroad and waterway systems in a short 
timeframe. The team at WVU is confident they can improve the ratings of 
WV bridges from D to B in 5 years at about 30 to 40 % of replacement 
costs while also retraining others in new emerging industries.
    Reliable and durable polymer composite technologies are readily 
available at WVU to improve our nation's transportation infrastructure 
in a cost effective and timely manner. What can DOT do to ensure that 
there are more opportunities for demonstrations and field re/training 
of our workforce labor that can lead to productivity improvements for 
infrastructure and reducing carbon footprint?
    Answer. Yes indeed, West Virginia University's Constructed 
Facilities Center (CFC) has been involved with the composites industry 
for more than a quarter century, and our teams at UMaine and WVU have 
collaborated in the past.
    At one point the DOT had implemented a program called IBRC, the 
Innovative Bridge Research and Construction program. The goal was to 
demonstrate new technologies and under the program a number of 
composite bridge applications were demonstrated across the country. 
Restarting and sustaining this kind of program over the long run can 
lead to continued sustained innovation. A lot has been learned under 
this program, and lessons learned can be used to formulate an IBRC-2 
focused specifically on composite materials and other advanced 
materials demonstrations. The criteria for such a program would include 
lessons learned from the previous program, and a stronger emphasis on 
cost reduction, construction speed improvements, and carbon footprint 
reduction. One focus of the new program would be on developing scale 
and mass-production capabilities for these advanced materials. So 
rather than building or retrofitting a single bridge as a 
demonstration, the new IBRC-2 program can emphasize projects where 
multiple bridges can be constructed or strengthened.
    Finally, the Imagine Act provides an excellent vehicle to bring 
about continuing innovations, and help regain US leadership in the 
advanced materials space.
    https://www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom/collins-whitehouse-
introduce-imagine-act-spur-use-innovative-materials-rebuilding-american
    Question. West Virginia has been has been hard hit in recent years 
by extreme weather that has severely impacted local communities. In 
2016, there was a tragic 1,000-year flood that devastated West 
Virginia, leaving 23 dead, thousands of homes and businesses destroyed, 
half a million residents without power, and $46 million worth of 
damaged roads. In the community of Elkview, the flooding caused the 
only bridge connected the Elkview Crossing mall to the town to come 
crashing down, trapping people, harming the local economy, and starting 
a long process of building a new bridge. Communities still feel the 
impact of that flood today.
    According to the US Army Corps of Engineers 2021 Infrastructure 
Report Card, 21% of bridges in West Virginia are structurally 
deficient, well above the national average of just over 7%. Further, 
31% of West Virginia roads are in poor condition. Each motorist pays 
$726 per year in costs due to driving on roads in need of repair. The 
lack of resilience directly impacts both daily life and the pockets of 
hard working West Virginians.
    Can you speak to any work being done to review how potential 
infrastructure spending can be implemented in a way that focuses on 
resilience?
    Answer. One key recommendation to better address resilience is to 
require a Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA) in making decisions about 
infrastructure projects or studying design alternatives. This will 
allow limited resilience funding to be targeted in the most efficient 
manner. Moreover, LCA needs to be a requirement not only to address 
resiliency but also to help select the most effective design or 
materials alternatives for any project.
    Question. What can my office be doing to ensure that Federal, 
State, and Local stakeholders are all involved in the process to review 
old and new infrastructure projects?
    Answer. The current process of designing and reviewing 
transportation projects does include federal, State and local 
stakeholders. One way to strengthen the process may be to require that 
multiples alternative solutions be solicited from all the stakeholders, 
which are then evaluated and ranked using a Life-Cycle Analysis metric.
    Question. Have you identified any projects that could be used as a 
model for protecting and repairing our bridges and roads, particularly 
focusing on rural communities?
    Answer. At the TIDC in Maine we have been looking at a multiprong 
approach for repairing and protecting rural infrastructure:

    1) Better inspection, Assessment Models and Tools: Using advanced 
modeling and in-situ testing methods, we have been evaluating if one 
can extend the life of existing bridges, rather than post them or shut 
them down. Under this program, we used load testing and advanced 
numerical modeling techniques that allowed us to keep 2/3 of the 
bridges we evaluated open with no posting. These bridges would have 
been otherwise posted or closed. This is a temporary fix that help to 
extend the life of some eligible bridge assets for a number of years.

    2) Simple Strengthening Methods. We have been developing methods to 
repair/strengthen bridges using bonded or bolted composite materials. 
These simple repair methods can be done with minimal assets on the site 
and avoid lengthy road closures where alternative routes in rural 
communities may not be readily available or nearby.

    3) Accelerated Bridge Replacement Using Low-Logistics Systems. 
Speeding replacement of rural bridges using low-logistics designs and 
materials, such as lighter composite arches or light composite girders 
have been developed by our team, please see examples below. Please see 
bullets 1 and 2 in Dagher testimony for specific low-logistics 
solutions and projects developed and implemented. These low-logistics 
solutions allow for more rapid replacement, as this is even more 
critical in rural communities due to the lack of alternative routes. 
https://www.bridges.aitcomposites.com/

    The Energy and Natural Resources Committee (ENR) held a hearing 
last month on how to maintain reliable, resilient, and affordable 
energy amid the changing mix and more frequent extreme weather events. 
No source of energy is 100% immune to weather disruptions and we need 
to be investing in smart and strategic upgrades to weatherization and 
infrastructure like transmission and pipelines. While Pipelines fall 
under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the relationship 
between energy and transportation is present. Whether it be its impact 
on prices, spills on roadways, or train derailment, Energy and 
Transportation go hand in hand.
    Question. Is there interagency work and research being conducted on 
how to secure our transportation networks, including the systems we use 
to transport materials and our natural resources?
    Answer. Yes indeed this is an important multifaceted issue. I defer 
this to other members of the panel who are closer to this issue. I am 
aware of some work that the Department of Homeland Security has been 
conducting along with state transportation agencies to help secure 
major transportation assets.
    Question. What can my office be doing to help these discussions, 
reach important stakeholders and communities to ensure projects are 
community-minded and are looking at long-term resilience?
    Answer. As stated earlier, requiring that projects conduct a Life-
Cycle Analysis (LCA) of alternatives, by soliciting/evaluating 
alternative solutions provided by a wider range of stakeholders would 
be a positive step in finding better, more cost-effective and resilient 
solutions.

                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

    Senator Schatz. This hearing is now adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 3:21 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]