[Senate Hearing 117-284]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





                                                        S. Hrg. 117-284


                  21ST CENTURY COMMUNITIES: EXPANDING
                   OPPORTUNITY THROUGH INFRASTRUCTURE
                              INVESTMENTS

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                              COMMITTEE ON
                   BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                   ON

  EXAMINING HOW INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT WILL HELP WORKERS AND THEIR 
                                FAMILIES

                               __________

                              MAY 20, 2021

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
                                Affairs



[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




                Available at: https: //www.govinfo.gov/ 
                
                
                
                
                
                
                             _________
                              
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                 
47-787 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2023  












            COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS

                     SHERROD BROWN, Ohio, Chairman

JACK REED, Rhode Island              PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey          RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
JON TESTER, Montana                  MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia             TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts      MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland           THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
TINA SMITH, Minnesota                BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  JERRY MORAN, Kansas
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia             KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
                                     STEVE DAINES, Montana

                     Laura Swanson, Staff Director

                 Brad Grantz, Republican Staff Director

                       Elisha Tuku, Chief Counsel

                 Beth Cooper, Professional Staff Member

               Homer Carlisle, Professional Staff Member

                 Dan Sullivan, Republican Chief Counsel

                 John Crews, Republican Policy Director

                      Cameron Ricker, Chief Clerk

                      Shelvin Simmons, IT Director

                    Charles J. Moffat, Hearing Clerk

                                  (ii)





























                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                         THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2021

                                                                   Page

Opening statement of Chairman Brown..............................     1
        Prepared statement.......................................    46

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
    Senator Toomey...............................................     4
        Prepared statement.......................................    47

                               WITNESSES

Marcia L. Fudge, Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban 
  Development....................................................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................    48
    Responses to written questions of:
        Senator Toomey...........................................    52
        Senator Warren...........................................    59
        Senator Van Hollen.......................................    59
Pete Buttigieg, Secretary, Department of Transportation..........     8
    Prepared statement...........................................    50
    Responses to written questions of:
        Senator Toomey...........................................    60
        Senator Cortez Masto.....................................    62
        Senator Kennedy..........................................    65

                                 (iii)

 
21ST CENTURY COMMUNITIES: EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY THROUGH INFRASTRUCTURE 
                              INVESTMENTS

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
          Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met at 10:01 a.m., via Webex, Hon. Sherrod 
Brown, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERROD BROWN

    Chairman Brown. The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, 
and Urban Affairs will come to order.
    This hearing is in the virtual format. A few reminders. 
Once you start speaking, there will be a slight delay before 
you are displayed on the screen. To minimize background noise, 
please click the mute button until it is your turn to speak or 
to ask questions.
    You should all have one box on your screens labeled 
``Clock.'' For witnesses, you will have 5 minutes for opening 
statements. All Senators, the 5-minute clock still applies.
    At 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a bell ring, then 
the bell when time has expired.
    If there is a technology issue, we will move to the next 
witness or Senator until it is resolved. To simplify the 
speaking order process, Senator Toomey and I have agreed to go 
by seniority for this hearing.
    We are honored today to welcome Secretary Marcia Fudge of 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Secretary 
Pete Buttigieg of the Department of Transportation.
    President Biden promised an Administration that reflects 
the country it serves. We are lucky to have two Cabinet 
Departments led by former mayors from the industrial heartland.
    Mayors know better than most how, for decades, an economy 
centered on Wall Street has left American cities, towns, and 
rural areas too often to fend for themselves.
    We have seen the damage: housing that poisons our kids with 
lead paint and mold; homes bought up by rich outside investors, 
left empty to fall into disrepair; roads and bridges falling 
apart; and neighborhoods and workers that are cutoff from 
opportunity.
    Now we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity--a once-in-
a-generation opportunity--to rebuild this country's 
infrastructure.
    The investments we make through HUD and through DOT will 
matter for our country and will bring down the cost of housing 
and transportation for workers and their families.
    These are the costs that matter to most people's lives--
your rent, your mortgage, your utilities, your car payment, 
your bus fare.
    All these investments will create jobs and grow local 
communities. When work has dignity, everyone can afford housing 
and can afford to get to work.
    Over the past few months, this Committee has heard from 
leaders in housing and public transportation--not only experts 
in Washington, but local leaders who understand what 
communities really need to grow. These two distinguished 
Cabinet Secretaries are both, both experts and local leaders. 
All of these leaders have illustrated how decades of 
underinvestment in housing and transit have set us back.
    It is common sense. When we do not invest in infrastructure 
that a modern economy requires, we lose out to competitors. 
Communities stagnate or, in the memorable words of our 
colleague from Montana, sometimes they dry up. Inequality gets 
worse, pollution harms families, jobs and prosperity flow to 
only a small number of wealthy cities, or they move out of the 
country altogether.
    Rural communities have not gotten the investment they need 
to produce enough housing for local families. Bridges are too 
often in poor condition. Public transit providers need 
continued help. Households especially that do not have a car, 
that number is only growing as Baby Boomers age.
    All of these problems are often at their most persistent in 
Brown and Black neighborhoods that have never had the 
transformative Federal investment in their communities.
    As we discussed at our hearing on the legacy of redlining, 
when we talked about it, from Black codes to Jim Crow to 
redlining to locking in discriminatory practices at Federal 
agencies, we live in communities we built in the 20th century, 
with the biases of the time.
    It is time to invest in creating communities that will meet 
the needs of this country in this century. This time we cannot 
leave anyone behind. We will rebuild our communities to work 
for everyone.
    The American Jobs Plan is a bold effort to reverse decades 
of neglect, to rebuild, to put in place the foundation for a 
21st century economy, where people have the jobs and the 
economic security to raise a family, to choose the community 
they want to live in, to start a small business.
    It would produce, preserve, and retrofit over 2 million 
affordable homes, would address the huge backlog of capital 
needs in public housing, will make our homes more energy 
efficient to bring down utility costs--all while creating job 
opportunities in the building trades and other sectors.
    The American Jobs Plan would construct new bus rapid 
transit lines in cities like Columbus and Cincinnati, really in 
all regions of the country. It would finally tackle the repair 
backlog in the transit industry estimated now to be in excess 
of $100 billion.
    President Biden and I also agree on the need to replace 
aging transit buses with zero-emission vehicles made right here 
in America. The Jobs Plan would allow us to replace 50,000 
buses.
    The Administration recognizes the importance of ensuring 
that investments in housing and transit work together and of 
encouraging communities to think about how they can help make 
it affordable for families to live there.
    We know when a business decides where to build a new 
manufacturing facility or a young family decides whether to 
relocate for a new job, they do not only consider one factor. 
They think about how they will get to work, how long will the 
commute be, will their whole paycheck get eaten up by rent or 
the mortgage, is there broadband at home, is there child care 
nearby they can afford.
    These pieces fit together. Communities need all of them if 
they want them to survive and thrive.
    While much of today's conversation will focus on housing 
and transit investments, we must tackle all of these critical 
investments.
    The Brent Spence Bridge over the Ohio River in Secretary 
Fudge's and my home State that connects Cincinnati and northern 
Kentucky carries approximately 3 percent of our Nation's GDP, 
but that bridge is dangerously outdated.
    Brent Spence is far from the only one. Our Committee 
Members' States have thousands of large and small bridges in 
need of repair. Those bridges carry millions of cars and buses 
every day.
    I look forward to working with both Secretaries on the 
Bridge Investment Act to make sure that Congress finally 
tackles overdue bridge projects.
    We call this the ``American Jobs Plan'' for a reason. 
Almost all these jobs will be here. They cannot be shipped 
overseas. You cannot repair an American railroad track or an 
American bridge from China.
    We are going to build new buses and rail cars and homes in 
America, with American raw materials and American union 
workers.
    The President called this a ``blue collar blueprint to 
rebuild America.'' He is right.
    We need bold action to protect our communities, to build 
infrastructure, protect them from climate disasters, to put 
Americans to work in good-paying jobs.
    The two former mayors today, from Warrensville Heights and 
South Bend, these two mayors know the pride people take in 
their neighborhoods and their hometowns. People want to see 
their communities thrive and grow. They want job opportunities 
for their kids. They want transportation and housing options 
they can afford.
    And local leaders, of both parties, are desperate--I talk 
to mayors and county commissioners all the time; actually, in 
Ohio, there are many more Republicans than Democrats in those 
offices. They are desperate for the resources and support to 
make those dreams a reality. For decades, they have watched 
Washington point to soaring stock prices as evidence the 
economy is doing well, yet their communities too often are not. 
That Wall Street wealth never translated into investment in 
their own Main Streets.
    We change that approach starting now.
    I look forward to hearing from both our witnesses, 
Secretary Marcia Fudge, Secretary Pete Buttigieg.
    Senator Toomey is recognized.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. TOOMEY

    Senator Toomey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Fudge 
and Secretary Buttigieg, welcome to both of you.
    The topic of today's hearing is an important one. It is 
infrastructure. A week ago I met with President Biden and a 
group of my Republican colleagues to discuss a potential 
bipartisan infrastructure package. Secretary Buttigieg was 
there. It was a constructive meeting, and I am encouraged by 
the President's apparent willingness to negotiate with 
Republicans.
    I would suggest that there should be three features of an 
infrastructure package if it is going to have broad, bipartisan 
support.
    First, it should responsibly boost support for real, that 
is to say physical infrastructure. That is the platforms that 
we share, the platforms and systems that we use to move people, 
goods, and services throughout our economy. Those are things 
that most Americans understand to be infrastructure, things 
like roads and bridges and ports and airports and transit.
    Second, a package that we agreed to cannot undo the 2017 
tax reforms that helped create the best economy of my lifetime. 
Remember, before COVID, just a little over a year ago, we were 
experiencing an almost unprecedented economic boom. We had the 
lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, all-time record low 
unemployment for African-Americans, Hispanic Americans, many 
other subsets of our population. We had more job openings than 
there were people looking for jobs. We had a record low poverty 
rate. We had wages growing across the board, wages growing 
fastest for the lowest-income workers. So this economy was 
narrowing the income group while it was performing at a 
spectacular pace. I am suggesting it would be a good thing to 
get back to the best economy of my lifetime. So we will not get 
there if we undo the tax reform that helped us achieve that.
    Third, we should not pay for a big infrastructure package 
by borrowing or printing hundreds of billions of more dollars. 
The good news on this front is we have hundreds of billions of 
unspent COVID-related legislated funds that Congress can 
repurpose to pay for the infrastructure. According to CBO, over 
$700 billion just of the Democrats' March so-called COVID bill 
will not be spent even by the end of this year. And, in fact, 
the Biden administration has already begun repurposing unneeded 
excess COVID funds from previous bills. HHS has diverted $1.7 
billion that was originally meant for COVID, and they are using 
that instead for unaccompanied minors at the border.
    So what Congress should not do is simply go on a spending 
binge of more taxpayer dollars on a liberal wish list that 
expands the welfare State. Let us take housing, for example.
    The Biden administration is now proposing almost a quarter 
of a trillion dollars for housing in an infrastructure plan.
    So, first of all, let us be clear: Housing is housing. 
Housing is not infrastructure. Of course, people need houses. 
They also need food and clothing and education and health care. 
That does not mean that every human need is infrastructure. It 
is not. We can reach an agreement on infrastructure. But the 
Administration wants to spend quarter of a trillion dollars on 
top of the fact that just this past March--that was 2 months 
ago--they had spent $32 billion for housing. And that came 
after Congress had provided over the course of last year $80 
billion for housing, which itself was on top of the roughly $50 
billion we spend annual on HUD alone, not to mention the 
billions we spend on other housing programs. If you have lost 
track of all the tens of billions of dollars, it is because it 
is really hard to keep it straight. It is a staggering amount 
of money.
    It is a similar story on the Administration's transit 
proposal. The Biden administration wants to spend another $85 
billion for transit as part of this infrastructure bill. That 
would come after the Democrats in March spent $30 billion for 
transit, which itself came after $40 billion last year for 
transit. And that was on top of the $13 billion that we 
annually spend on transit.
    So in case you were not using a calculator to keep track, 
that is $83 billion that Congress spent on transit just over 
the course of 1 year. That number actually exceeds the annual 
operating and capital costs combined of every single transit 
agency in America for a full year.
    Well, our Democratic colleagues point to a decline in 
ridership, but ridership did not drop to zero. And if it had, 
we would have to ask ourselves whether we should be throwing 
all this money in a system that has no riders. And, in 
addition, State and local governments ought to have some 
responsibility for this, and we sent them $850 billion on top 
of last year's all-time record high collection of revenue.
    Some of the provisions in the Administration's so-called 
infrastructure plan are so unrelated, completely unrelated to 
infrastructure that it is hard to even consider them with a 
straight face: $400 billion to expand Medicaid, $100 billion in 
consumer subsidies and rebates to purchase electric vehicles. 
The list goes on and on.
    Only 6 percent of the Administration's $2.2 trillion so-
called infrastructure actually goes to roads and bridges. So 
this kind of Government spending is not sustainable. It is 
contributing to inflation that is already with us. That 
inflation is essentially an extra tax that all of our 
constituents have to bear when they buy any of the things they 
need in life.
    And none of this should come as a surprise. Even President 
Obama's Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers, warned us of the 
negative inflationary risks of excessive spending. And he was 
issuing that warning about the Democrats' bill in March which 
at $1.9 trillion he thought was much too big. They passed it 
anyway, and now our Democratic colleagues are coming back to 
spend literally trillions more.
    Let me end where I began. In my view, I do think it is 
possible for us to enact a bipartisan bill that responsibly 
boosts Federal support for real physical infrastructure. And if 
all sides are willing to negotiate in good faith, I think an 
agreement can be struck. But I hope we will focus on that, real 
infrastructure that our economy and society needs, and do it in 
a responsible fashion.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Toomey. I will now 
introduce our witnesses.
    The Honorable Marcia Fudge, my former Congresswoman from 
Ohio's 11 District, has spent her career fighting for better 
opportunities for Ohioans. She has firsthand experience making 
housing more affordable for more families, including as the 
mayor of Warrensville Heights, Ohio. We are fortunate she is 
now applying her expertise across the Nation. It was an honor 
to chair the hearing reporting her nomination out of this 
Committee. It was my first hearing as Chair of this Committee. 
She was our first nominee reported out since I have been 
Chairman. It is an honor to work with a fellow Ohioan as 
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Welcome, Secretary 
Fudge. Glad you are with us.
    Our other witness, the Honorable Pete Buttigieg, served as 
mayor of South Bend, Indiana, a State which is to the west of 
mine. Mayor Pete showed his passion and creativity in using 
infrastructure to improve the well-being of workers and 
businesses in South Bend, implementing a Smart Streets 
Initiative that was recognized by USDOT as a national model. 
Now with Secretary Peter at the helm, DOT is in a position to 
transform streets, bridges, railways, and transit systems 
across America, all using our greatest asset, American workers. 
Our country is very fortunate. Welcome, Secretary Buttigieg.
    Secretary Fudge, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to 
provide your opening statement. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF MARCIA L. FUDGE, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING 
                     AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

    Secretary Fudge. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman. It 
is always a pleasure to see you, and thank you on behalf of all 
Ohioans for the great work you do for your State.
    Mr. Ranking Member, Mr. Toomey, and distinguished Members 
of the Senate Banking Committee, thank you for this opportunity 
to discuss President Biden's American Jobs Plan.
    Today, as America rebuilds from the COVID-19 pandemic, we 
face a fundamental decision about our future.
    We can choose to take a bold new direction that will make 
the United States more prosperous, more equitable, and more 
resilient in decades to come; a bold new direction that better 
positions us to win the global competition for the 21st 
century. That bold new direction is the American Jobs Plan.
    If we do not pass this plan, we will choose instead a very 
different path. We will return our Nation to the position we 
occupied before COVID-19--to an America beset by crumbling 
bridges, buildings, and homes; an America unprepared for the 
existential danger posed by climate change; an America 
grappling with an affordable housing crisis that threatens the 
security and the dignity of people in every corner of our 
Nation.
    Even before the pandemic, nearly 11 million Americans spent 
more than half of their incomes on rent. COVID-19 has only made 
this situation worse, especially for communities of color and 
people of modest means.
    The American Jobs Plan would address our housing crisis 
head-on in cities, small towns, rural communities, and tribal 
nations. The plan invests $213 billion to build and modernize 
more than 2 million affordable and sustainable places to live. 
To help more Americans realize their dream of hospital, the 
plan includes a new Federal tax credit based on the proposed 
Neighborhood Homes Investment Act. This credit can lead to the 
construction and renovation of approximately 500,000 single-
family homes.
    In addition to creating more housing, the American Jobs 
Plan preserves the affordable housing we already have. Nearly 2 
million people, including more than 1 million Americans of 
color, live in public housing. Yet much of our public housing 
is more than 50 years old and faces significant capital needs.
    The American Jobs Plan contains a $40 billion downpayment 
to help repair and rehabilitate our public housing 
infrastructure. This would dramatically improve the quality of 
life for residents. Furthermore, public housing is often 
located in underserved communities that are especially 
vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Investments that 
reduce energy use and increase resiliency can mitigate these 
risks. This plan will help make America's homes and public 
housing more efficient and better equipped to withstand extreme 
weather.
    In addition, this plan advances equity tribal nations. It 
contains $2 billion in Indian housing block grants to expand 
affordable housing, resilient infrastructure, and sustainable 
community development in tribal lands. All told, the 
investments in the American Jobs Plan underscore a fundamental 
truth: that housing is a vital part of our infrastructure.
    A secure and stable home represents more than four walls 
and a roof. It can connect us to better jobs, more affordable 
transportation options, and communities with cleaner air and 
cleaner water. It can connect our children with good schools, 
providing them with a pathway to earn a brighter future.
    Our homes are bedrock, brick-and-mortar institutions that 
lay the foundation for a stronger and more connected society--
just like our streets, our highways, and our airports. To put 
it simply, our homes serve as a bridge to greater opportunities 
for a better life.
    If we want the United States to remain the greatest Nation 
in the world, then we must first take care of home--in the most 
literal sense.
    To pass an infrastructure plan that fails to address our 
affordable housing crisis would be akin to building a road that 
leads to nowhere. That is why I am honored to appears today 
alongside Secretary Buttigieg. The Biden-Harris administration 
understands that in order to successfully enact the Jobs Plan, 
our two agencies must work in unison to help build more 
sustainable infrastructure and expand access to both affordable 
housing and affordable options for transportation. Together, we 
can help revitalize our Nation's infrastructure, including our 
housing infrastructure, and create an America that is more 
thriving, more resilient, and more interconnected than ever 
before.
    With that, I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Secretary Fudge.
    Secretary Buttigieg, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF PETE BUTTIGIEG, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF 
                         TRANSPORTATION

    Secretary Buttigieg. Thanks very much, Chairman Brown, 
Ranking Member Toomey, Members of the Committee. I appreciate 
the opportunity to testify before you today, and I want to 
thank you for your support for the Department of Transportation 
and our vital mission. I am very honored to be here with 
Secretary Fudge to discuss America's transportation and housing 
needs, particularly in this moment of great challenge and 
opportunity.
    We know that public transit has been hit hard by the 
pandemic. I want to thank you and your colleagues for passing 
the American Rescue Plan and other relief packages that 
provided a lifeline for public transit, for the people who 
depend on it, and for the essential transit workers who get 
people where they need to go.
    Public transit is key to building vibrant and 
interconnected communities, creating jobs, reducing pollution, 
combating climate change, advancing racial equity, and 
providing travel options for everyone. Too many families across 
the Nation are forced to choose between living impossibly far 
away from work so they can afford housing or paying more for 
housing than they can afford in order to have a reasonable 
commute. This puts a toll on working families who lose precious 
time with their loved ones and money needed for other 
essentials. Our lowest-income Americans are spending more on 
housing and transportation than they are taking in each month. 
Building transit and affordable housing alongside each other 
can be transformational for communities and families.
    That is why I am so grateful to be sitting next to 
Secretary Fudge--virtually, of course--at this hearing.
    When people can move safely and easily in their community 
by public transit, foot, bike, wheelchair, or any other means, 
it can improve the lives of those who call that community home. 
That is why transit-oriented development and public transit are 
such priorities for our Department and for me personally. We 
have already made $180 million available for cleaner transit 
buses. We allocated $187 million to help communities expand bus 
rapid transit. We recently made $10 million available to help 
more local governments plan for transit-oriented development in 
their communities.
    I am also pleased to announce that DOT will soon issue new 
guidance to help local communities and other prospective 
borrowers use the Department's transit-oriented development 
financing programs. And I am thrilled that DOT is 
reinvigorating a partnership with the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development to identify ways to provide more affordable 
housing choices near high-quality public transit.
    We are looking for opportunities to work with additional 
agencies, including the EPA and the Department of Agriculture, 
to make walking, biking, public transit, and other 
transportation options more widely available to disadvantaged 
and rural communities.
    These important steps will benefit communities across the 
country, but we must do far more. We face a $1 trillion backlog 
in needed repairs and improvements across our transportation 
infrastructure. The consequences of decades of disinvestment 
are felt in every State and have fallen most heavily on low-
income communities and communities of color, who are nearly 
four times more likely to commute by public transit.
    Our status quo is unsustainable. It is unfair and it is 
holding our people and economy back. And years of tinkering 
around the edges have not worked.
    That brings us to President Biden's American Jobs Plan. It 
is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to meet this moment.
    As we rebuild from the worst economic crisis in 
generations, this plan will provide the largest investment in 
American jobs since World War II, all with protections for 
existing labor standards. It will create millions of good-
paying jobs, the majority of which will not require a college 
degree, for Americans to help expand and operate our public 
transit system, modernize our roads and bridges, and build the 
electric vehicles of the future.
    It will double Federal investment--$85 billion--for public 
transit, making it a more reliable, attractive, and accessible 
option to more people in more communities.
    It will help us tackle the climate crisis by making public 
transit the option of choice for more people, by building a 
network of 500,000 electric vehicle chargers, and by replacing 
nearly 40 percent of the existing diesel transit vehicle fleet 
with electric vehicles.
    Chairman Brown, I thank you for your leadership on reducing 
fossil fuel emissions in the transportation sector and for 
ensuring that the vehicles of the future are built by union 
workers here in the U.S.
    This plan would also be the largest investment in 
transportation equity in history. At least 40 percent of the 
benefits of the plan's climate investments will flow to 
overburdened and underserved communities. And the plan has $20 
billion to reconnect neighborhoods cutoff by past 
transportation decisions, as well as another $20 billion to 
improve road safety for all users.
    I believe this is the best chance in our lifetime to 
modernize our infrastructure so Americans can thrive. This is 
our chance to provide current and future generations with the 
types of investment our forebears gave us in the New Deal--and 
this time to include all Americans in the opportunities that 
come from that investment.
    I am looking forward to working with this Committee to 
deliver for the American people. Thank you for the chance to 
testify, and I look forward to the opportunity to respond to 
questions.
    [Pause.]
    Senator Toomey. Chairman, I think you are muted.
    Senator Smith. Senator Brown, you are muted.
    [Pause.]
    The Clerk. Because we are having some technical 
difficulties with the Chairman's mic, Ranking Member Toomey, 
would you mind going first?
    Senator Toomey. That is fine. Can you hear me OK?
    The Clerk. Yes, we can.
    Senator Toomey. OK. Terrific. I will go first.
    So back in March, a couple months ago, our Democratic 
colleagues passed a spending bill that provided $5 billion for 
emergency housing vouchers to be distributed to people 
experiencing homelessness, victims of human trafficking, and 
other circumstances.
    Under that law and HUD's own regulations, illegal 
immigrants are not eligible for these vouchers, but just 
yesterday Fox Business reported that HUD reissued guidance that 
will have the effect of making it easier for illegal immigrants 
to obtain these emergency housing vouchers that are supposed to 
be meant for Americans. This happens because, as I understand 
it, the new guidance waives an existing HUD regulation that 
requires public housing authorities to obtain and verify 
documentation that an applicant for a housing voucher actually 
has a legal immigration status as opposed to an illegal status 
at the time of application.
    HUD's own regulations say that this requirement, the one 
that HUD is waiving--if this report is accurate--this 
requirement is meant to ``decrease the incidence of fraud, 
waste, and abuse.'' HUD's guidance may now allow illegal 
immigrants to obtain these housing vouchers that, as I said, 
are meant for American citizens.
    So, Secretary Fudge, isn't it important that we follow the 
law and the HUD regulation and have processes in place to 
minimize the risk that these vouchers go to people who are not 
supposed to have them?
    Secretary Fudge. Yes, Senator, indeed, it is, and I thank 
you for the question. I think that it is very, very clear from 
our May 5th public notice detailing the operating requirements 
for the emergency housing vouchers program. It is clear that, 
in line with current law, eligibility for assistance is limited 
to United States citizens and those with legal residency.
    Senator Toomey. Right, but I am concerned that this 
guidance, by waiving this rule that HUD has historically used 
to minimize the risk that illegal immigrants have these 
vouchers, by waiving this, isn't it going to increase the risk 
that illegal immigrants will end up obtaining these housing 
vouchers that are meant for U.S. citizens?
    Secretary Fudge. I do not believe that it will do that in 
any significant way, Senator. I think to say that would assume 
that every single illegal resident wants to come and scam the 
system. That is not how this works. People who are homeless 
generally do not have identification; they do not have their 
Social Security cards, et cetera. And so what we have done is 
allowed our housing authorities and partners to come up with 
ways to allow them to at least initially report themselves to 
self-certify and then we verify. And so----
    Senator Toomey. OK. I----
    Secretary Fudge. ----if we find that someone is in the 
system that should not be, we certainly will take care of it.
    Senator Toomey. Right. So, first of all, my question does 
not in any way imply that everyone who is here illegally is 
looking for these vouchers. There is no such suggestion. I am 
simply saying that if there is not an opportunity to screen out 
people who are not actually eligible, if we do not have that 
mechanism, then there is likely to be some abuse of this 
system, and it inevitably will take months at best to discover 
and then litigate and adjudicate these cases.
    I would just urge you to reconsider this. This is HUD's own 
regulation that is being waived, is described by HUD as serving 
the purpose of decreasing incidents of fraud, waste, and abuse. 
So I would just ask----
    Secretary Fudge. I am certainly willing to do so, sir. I 
will take another look at it.
    Senator Toomey. I appreciate that.
    The other thing is the Administration's so-called 
infrastructure plan calls for $40 billion more for public 
housing, and, you know, in many, many cases, public housing has 
become places where people do not really want to live. There 
are notorious stories of concentrations of poverty and crime 
and other social ills, and there is research that shows that 
families who move out of these projects often are able to 
integrate themselves in communities. There is a lower risk that 
they will be victims of crime. It seems that there are sensible 
alternatives. And, in fact, some of these projects are such in 
a state of disrepair that the cost of repairing them is greater 
than the cost that it would incur of just providing vouchers 
for people to live in good, decent homes.
    What are your thoughts on shifting some of this resource to 
providing vouchers for low-income people?
    Secretary Fudge. You know what, Senator? I agree with you 
100 percent. The problem is that we have people who live in 
public housing now, and we do not have enough housing for the 
demand. And so we still have to take care of the people who are 
in public housing, and that is what this $40 billion will do. 
For many, many years, we have not invested significantly in 
capital needs of public housing. And so what you have is 
buildings that are more than 50 years old, the majority of 
them, that are in different stages of disrepair.
    And so even though I agree that we do need to find ways to 
move people into other housing in communities with better 
opportunities, we still have to deal with the issue we 
currently have, and that is what the $40 billion will do.
    Senator Toomey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Toomey. Can I be heard 
now?
    Senator Toomey. Yes, you can be heard.
    Chairman Brown. OK. Good. Thank you. I apologize. I do not 
really know what happened. Thank you and thanks for stepping 
up, Pat.
    For too long--and I have talked to both of you about this 
personally, and I very much appreciate your recognition of this 
and your interest in solving it--we have failed to coordinate 
our housing and transportation policy. Your Departments are 
already working together to make unprecedented investments in 
our communities.
    A question for each of you. Why do we need to encourage 
sustainable community development with coordinated housing and 
transit investments? Secretary Fudge, do you want to start with 
that, please?
    Secretary Fudge. I would just say that a perfect example, 
Senator, is in our very own community. More than a decade ago, 
the city of Cleveland in Cuyahoga County recognized that need, 
and so we right now are a community that primarily is a health 
care community. So the health care industry is the largest 
employer. So what did we do? We put transportation through the 
heart of our communities to get people to jobs, to get people 
to the hospitals, to the universities, to the research 
institutions. And it is clear it has been successful, so I 
think that we are a perfect example of why it is necessary and 
why it works.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you.
    Secretary Buttigieg.
    Secretary Buttigieg. You know, I think as you noted, 
Secretary Fudge and I are both former mayors. I think mayors 
have to think about transportation and housing in an integrated 
way because they are part of the texture of how cities form. 
But maybe even more relevantly, families have to think about 
them in an integrated way because they hit the same family 
budget. And what we know is that if we can build housing on 
affordable terms and make it affordable to get to where you 
need to be, from home to work, to school, and anywhere else you 
need to go, that eases pressure on a family budget.
    So it is very important to think about how these can 
mutually reinforce one another. It is one reason we are excited 
in this department about transit-oriented development and other 
ways to link housing policies with transit and transportation 
policies.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you.
    Secretary Fudge, we had this conversation when I was in 
your office many years ago when you are mayor of Warrensville 
Heights, and we have had it since. I do not have to tell you 
how pervasive lead paint still is in Cleveland, how devastating 
the effects are. One in four children in our city entering 
kindergarten has had elevated blood lead levels. Preventing 
lead poisoning not only protects kids and their futures; it 
also saves health and education costs and creates jobs in 
remediation and removal of this poison.
    Will you commit to work with me to make significant 
investments to eliminate lead paint hazards from homes in the 
infrastructure package that you and I and the Congress and the 
White House work on?
    Secretary Fudge. Yes, I will make that commitment, because 
certainly we can and we must do a better job at dealing with 
the lead-based paint issue. Absolutely, Senator, I would be 
happy to work with you on that.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    Secretary Buttigieg, on the local level, what does it mean 
with USDOT is able to fund a major project like bus rapid 
transit? Can you as a former mayor talk about the limits local 
leaders face under sort of average transportation bills that we 
have passed before, what more they could do with the 
transformative infrastructure package?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, certainly local leaders often 
have visionary plans for transportation in their communities, 
but with the resources that have been available, often it has 
taken heroic creativity just to keep things operating the way 
they are. And I do not think any visionary mayor or local 
leader wants to simply see things remain in the status quo.
    Often what has been needed really is a new vision, the 
ability to extend transit to where it had not been before, or 
as you mentioned, much more efficient means of transit that 
were thought of a few decades ago, like bus rapid transit. And 
with the right resources, the kind of resources contemplated in 
the American Jobs Plan, we can meet those local leaders where 
they are. They have already been raising revenue, doing the 
work, but often these transformational investments just will 
not happen unless there is major Federal support.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you.
    Last question, Secretary Fudge. Over the past couple 
months, this Committee has heard testimony from witnesses on 
all side, from Richard Rothstein, who wrote ``The Color of 
Law'', to Harvard's Joint Center on Housing Studies, to the 
American Enterprise Institute, saying that restrictive zoning 
can thwart access to opportunity, can hold us back as we try to 
address the affordable housing crisis.
    Madam Secretary, how can HUD help communities address 
restrictive zoning and expand access to housing development?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, I am really happy you asked that 
question. The American Jobs Plan does address how we may assist 
communities in their zoning, because we do know that there is a 
lot of restrictive zoning that has created a problem, and it 
has made the cost of home buying and home building even more.
    And so what we have done is say to communities we want to 
give you an incentive and assist you technically with how you 
look at and engage your communities to change some of the 
zoning laws that have created historically very difficult 
problems to address. We know it is a local issue, but we 
believe that we can give the kind of assistance that will make 
people rethink it and talk to them about the entire concept of 
moving people into communities, thriving communities that give 
them opportunities to be more productive citizens, to better 
train and school their children. We know that it is something 
that has to be done, and the Jobs Plan really addresses it 
very, very well.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    Senator Warner from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Senator Warner. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you for holding this hearing. And it is great to see both 
Secretary Fudge and Secretary Buttigieg.
    Secretary Fudge, I want to start with a couple questions 
for you, kind of building on some of the conversations we have 
had in the past. I really appreciate the fact that while you 
were in Congress, you were always a strong advocate for 
community development financial institutions, CDFIs, a 
relatively small piece of our overall financing system, but as 
my colleagues know, by definition they are lending over 60 
percent of their lending to low- and moderate-income 
communities. I am proud of the fact that in the December bill 
we made a record investment in both MDIs, minority depository 
institutions, and CDFIs. And while a lot of the folks on the 
Democratic side were quite supportive, I want to call out my 
friend Mike Crapo, who was the lead Republican on that. We did 
get $12 billion in, $9 billion of which will go in as Tier 1 
capital going into CDFIs. That will basically, you know, even 
on a conservative basis, add $90 billion worth of ongoing 
lending capacity. When we think about the affordable housing 
shortages, we have got to both get at the supply, but also the 
ability for folks to acquire some of these units.
    Secretary Fudge, can you talk about the critical role that 
continuing to invest in CDFIs could have as a way to address 
some of the housing shortages we have?
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you very much, Senator, and thank 
you for our conversations that we have had. They have been 
quite instructive and I think quite helpful for me as well, and 
I hope for you.
    What we noticed--and I will tell you a perfect example. 
What we noticed when the House and Senate decided to do the 
PPP, we realized then that, as we could see what as happening, 
that the big banks, the big institutions were getting all the 
resources, and that is why people of color, small businesses, 
et cetera, were not getting resources, because they deal with 
people like CDFIs and small lending institutions. And so when 
you start to send resources to those kinds of institutions, you 
reach the people of highest need. That is why it is important 
to fund CDFIs and small community banks, because the access and 
the understanding culturally as well as area-wide is so much 
better with these institutions.
    So I think that they are something that we must continue to 
work with because they are the people who deal with the smaller 
loans that help people with technical assistance and other 
things when it comes to home buying. They are the people who 
drive low-income communities. And so I think that it is an 
absolute necessity that we continue to fund and support CDFIs 
and small banks.
    Senator Warner. Well, thank you, and I do think there are a 
number of our community banks who want to try to do more in 
this space. They may need some regulatory forbearance. But I 
look forward to working with you and the Committee on this.
    I also just want to again make sure I get one question in 
to Secretary Buttigieg, but I do want to raise that I talked 
with you about, Secretary Fudge, and I had mentioned to the 
Chairman and I am working with the Administration on. We all 
know--and COVID obviously exacerbated this--the wealth gap in 
this country, the wealth gap between Black families, White 
families, 10:1 differential, almost as large in terms of Latino 
families. And a lot of that is due to the fact that Black and 
Brown families do not have access to home ownership in similar 
levels.
    We are working on a program, Mr. Chairman, where we are 
looking at an initiative that would help all first-generation 
homebuyers--so this would be not just Black and Brown; it would 
be White as well, although my data, it would end up being about 
two-thirds Black and Brown communities. And I will not get into 
all the details here, but with a slight interest rate subsidy, 
we could create through Ginnie Mae a product that would allow a 
family, if they could meet, you know, a traditional mortgage 
payment, create literally a 20-year mortgage product that would 
have the payment based upon 30-year kind of rates. Doing this--
and trust me on the math. At this point I will have to point it 
out to everybody that it would actually double wealth creation 
records. And I really look forward--in 10 years you would get 
twice as much wealth creation on a 20-year mortgage as you 
would on a 30-year mortgage.
    I am down to 15 seconds. I just want to compliment you, 
Secretary Buttigieg. You met with frontline workers from WMATA 
and the general manager there. Forty percent of the Federal 
workforce travels on Metro. We have an important Federal 
component there. I am sure Chris Van Hollen will ask you a 
question on that, but I wanted to get my 2 cents in before my 
time ran out.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Warner.
    Senator Hagerty, if he is here, is next. If not, Senator 
Moran? If not, Senator Cortez Masto from Nevada is recognized--
oh, Senator Hagerty. I am sorry, Catherine.
    Senator Cortez Masto. No problem.
    Chairman Brown. Senator Hagerty is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Chairman Brown, Ranking Member 
Toomey. Thank you, Secretary Fudge, Secretary Buttigieg. Thank 
you for being here today. I appreciate that.
    I would like to turn to my own State, if I could, 
Tennessee. We have some of the best roads and bridges in 
America in Tennessee. We are also a physically well-managed 
State. In fact, we are one of the few States to actual finance 
our transportation projects without using debt financing. We 
pay as we go on this. But I think--and, Secretary Buttigieg, 
you are very well aware of this--that our Interstate 40 bridge 
that connects Tennessee and Arkansas across the Mississippi 
river, 9 days ago it was discovered it has a severe fracture in 
the structural frame, the support girders for that bridge.
    I have been in touch with State and local officials, with 
the Tennessee Department of Transportation, with barge 
operators in the private sector. My team has been working with 
the Coast Guard, who have jurisdiction over the Mississippi 
River. And, again, the Mississippi is middle America's 
superhighway for transportation and commerce.
    On Saturday, I sent a letter to President Biden about the 
crisis and copied you, Secretary Buttigieg, and I want to thank 
you, because as a result of that letter, I saw that this 
morning the Federal Highway Administration is sending a team to 
Memphis posthaste.
    I applaud you for making this a top priority, Secretary 
Buttigieg. The crisis has delayed fuel supplies, it has delayed 
agricultural products--many critical commodities that reach 
markets through the Mississippi River. It has also created 
tremendous delays in traffic. This is affecting real people, 
the livelihoods, their ability to get to where they need to go. 
It is impacting commerce at some many levels. So I want to 
thank you for the effort that you have put in, the 
responsiveness to my letter and to our conversation, Secretary 
Buttigieg, to prioritize this for your Department, and I look 
forward to continuing to work with your Department to make sure 
that the situation in Memphis and Arkansas is resolved as 
quickly as possible.
    I hope that the Administration and my Democratic colleagues 
are serious about working in a bipartisan way to solve our 
infrastructure problems. The I-40 bridge that we are talking 
about here is not the only problem, and this bridge should not 
require legislation or time-consuming debate about whether 
Government nanny care is infrastructure or not. Longer term, 
investment in real infrastructure--in our roads, our bridges, 
our tunnels, waterways, ports, rail, broadband, our power grid, 
and pipes--is needed. But to pay for it by raising taxes on 
American workers and job creators just as we are poised to 
emerge from a pandemic-driven recession is the opposite of what 
we need. We should be incentivizing hundreds of billions of 
dollars in private capital and get off the sidelines, and we 
need to be reducing bureaucratic paperwork, ridiculous 
regulatory costs, and unnecessary delays. And we have got to 
ensure that anything we do reaches all the way to the most 
rural areas of our country, like in my home State of Tennessee.
    Secretary Buttigieg, I would like to turn my first question 
to you. You have had past private sector experience as a 
management consultant. I am sure that you looked at ways with 
your clients to improve operations. I am sure you looked at 
private financing, too, and perhaps ways to incentivize private 
capital. And within your domain at the Department of 
transportation, you have the Build America Bureau. The Build 
America Bureau's mission encompasses private activity bonds, 
the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act. 
the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing 
Administration, among other programs.
    As we look at infrastructure and think about infrastructure 
going forward, Secretary, I wanted to get your comments and 
thoughts on the types of process improvements, the types of 
bureaucratic regulatory changes that could be made that could 
help accelerate investment in infrastructure for us.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you, Senator, and first of 
all, let me just state my appreciation for the collaboration 
and involvement with your office and others in dealing with the 
I-40 bridge matter.
    To get to your question, we do believe there are a lot of 
opportunities for us to get more bang for a taxpayer buck 
through process improvements, something I encountered even as a 
mayor, seeing all of the steps involved in permitting, and have 
challenged our team to identify ways that we can find where 
there may be duplication or there might be a way to meet the 
intent of the law with fewer steps or a simpler and more 
predictable process.
    I also appreciate your mentioning private activity bonds, 
one example, along with some of the others you mentioned, where 
we do see ways to mobilize private capital. And it is a popular 
program. As a matter of fact, I think we are just about at our 
congressionally authorized cap right now. And while it is more 
appropriate to some uses than others, since, of course, many of 
these financing options really expect or require that there be 
an associated revenue stream, we do think there is a lot more 
potential here and would welcome opportunities to work with you 
on building that out, building on successes like the Build 
America Bureau here at the Department.
    Senator Hagerty. I will look forward to working on that 
with you and your team, Secretary. Thank you.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Hagerty.
    Senator Menendez from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to 
both our Secretaries. It is good to be with you.
    Secretary Buttigieg, you and I have discussed the Gateway 
project, a series of projects including the port of North 
Bridge and the new Hudson River tunnels in a region that would 
modernize a 10-mile segment of track that is the linchpin of 
the Northeast corridor, a region of the country that generates 
20 percent of GDP for the entire Nation. I appreciate that the 
President and your Department have consistently highlighted the 
importance of Gateway, and I had the pleasure of speaking to 
Nuria Fernandez, the President's nominee to be the FTA 
Administrator, about the project in her hearing last week. She 
committed to working with stakeholders to move the Hudson River 
tunnel projects through the capital investment grant program 
process, and I would like to ask for a similar commitment from 
you. Would you commit to working with the project sponsors and 
congressional delegations in the coming months to get the 
Gateway project done?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you for the question, and, 
yes, you have our commitment to work with your office, other 
members of the delegations, and the project sponsors on this. 
This is an example of a project that may be located in one 
region but is so critical that you would feel it anywhere in 
the country if there were to be, for example, a failure in one 
of these critical tunnels. So we are continuing to see this 
move along and are committed to working with you to see it go 
forward.
    Senator Menendez. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. I 
appreciate your appreciation of what the project means.
    The Department has previously said that we should see the 
environmental reviews for the project by the end of May after 
years of delay by the Trump administration. Do you know if we 
are still on track to see that process move forward?
    Secretary Buttigieg. We are hopeful to see that move 
forward soon, and right now I think the main area where the FTA 
and I think also FRA have been in touch with the project's 
sponsors has been on the financing plan. As that information 
comes together, I am hopeful we can move this along as planned.
    Senator Menendez. OK. A good infrastructure plan not only 
creates good jobs, but also takes into account how 
infrastructure affects access to good jobs. Secretary Fudge, 
does a lack of affordable housing in job-rich areas limit 
workers' access to good jobs?
    Secretary Fudge. There is no question about it. I just 
spent some time in your State, Senator, and when we do not have 
people housed properly or have them in a position where they 
have access to housing or to good jobs or schools, yes, it is a 
major issue.
    Senator Menendez. Tank you. Low-income communities then 
have the additional burden of disproportionately lacking access 
to transit which could connect communities to jobs. Secretary 
Buttigieg, does a lack of public transit options also limit 
workers' access to good jobs?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Unquestionably so. People need to be 
able to physically get to where the opportunity is, and if they 
lack good or affordable options to get there, that is an 
economic barrier.
    Senator Menendez. So, therefore, wouldn't you both say that 
transportation access should be a major consideration when 
designing affordable housing policy?
    Secretary Fudge. Absolutely.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes.
    Senator Menendez. I agree, and that is why I am 
reintroducing the Livable Communities Act, which would create a 
grant program to fund coordinated development of affordable 
housing and transit so that we can better expand access to 
economic opportunities, and I look forward to hopefully working 
with both of you. I hope that the fact that you are both here 
together testifying, which is not the normal course of events, 
is also indicative that both of you will be able to work 
together because of the nexus between transportation and 
housing.
    Madam Secretary, there is a severe nationwide shortage of 
affordable senior housing. According to the Urban Institute, of 
the 16.1 million new household formations over the next 20 
years, more than 80 percent of them--80 percent--will be senior 
households. I know what it means to seniors in my State, which 
is a high-cost State. What does the significant increase in 
senior households means for our senior public and assisted 
housing capacity and the senior housing needs that Congress 
should prepare for?
    Secretary Fudge. Senator, I am so glad you asked that 
question because people, I think, forget that significant 
numbers of people who live in public housing are senior 
citizens. We know that we do not have in place the 
infrastructure to allow seniors over the next few years to age 
in place. That is one of the reasons why the Jobs Plan talks 
about how we take care of our seniors and puts resources in the 
202 plan. I think that it is really important that we start to 
address this now, as we know the senior population is going to 
just continue to increase.
    So I thank you for asking the question because it is 
something we must address, and we must address it soon.
    Senator Menendez. This is where a program like our Trusted 
Section 202 program is really important. We look forward to 
working with you and with you, Mr. Secretary, on the transit 
side of our efforts on the development of our package.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Menendez.
    Senator Kennedy from Louisiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me 
OK?
    Chairman Brown. Yes.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. Thank you. I want to thank our two 
Secretaries for being here today. I know you are busy.
    Secretary Fudge----
    Secretary Fudge. Sir, I am having a little trouble hearing 
you.
    Senator Kennedy. Can you hear me now?
    Secretary Fudge. I can hear you better, yes, sir.
    Senator Kennedy. OK. Secretary Fudge, Louisiana, as you 
probably know, was hit by two massive hurricanes last year. The 
focal point was southwest Louisiana, but the hurricanes were 
devastating central Louisiana to northeast Louisiana. With 
respect to block grant disaster assistance, my Governor, who 
happens to be a Democrat, and I and our entire congressional 
delegation have repeatedly talked to the White House about 
getting an answer to our request for the disaster relief. We 
have asked, we have begged, we have cajoled, we have sent fruit 
baskets. We have not sent over a personal pan pizza yet, but we 
are thinking about doing that to the White House. We just want 
an answer.
    Can you help me get an answer?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, Senator, it is my understanding that 
there was an answer sent to you by OMB on behalf of the 
President. Is there something further that you would like me to 
do? I am happy to do it.
    Senator Kennedy. Yes, ma'am. Tell me what the answer was, 
because I have not heard. I have not been able to find anybody 
to give me an answer with a search party. I cannot find them 
with Google. So if there is an answer, maybe you could tell me 
right now. I would really be grateful.
    Secretary Fudge. Well, basically I have the letter in front 
of me addressed to you from Acting Director Shalanda Young, who 
talked with you basically----
    Senator Kennedy. Can you tell me what it says?
    Secretary Fudge. OK, yes. Basically what it says is that--
certainly, and let me just say this first, though, Senator, 
that I am very, very sorry about what has happened, especially 
even with the rains of this past week. But it says that the 
Administration----
    Senator Kennedy. That is OK. If the letter says yes, all is 
forgiven. Can you tell me if the letter says yes?
    Secretary Fudge. What the letter says and what I am saying 
as well is that we are more than willing to support what is 
happening, but Congress needs to make that decision. Whatever 
decision Congress makes, we are going to be supportive of.
    Senator Kennedy. Yes, ma'am. But as you know, customarily 
the way this works, the White House has to send a request to 
Congress. Has the President decided to send over that request? 
And if so, do you know when we get it?
    Secretary Fudge. No, but I can ask. But I would say this, 
Senator: You know, just by my own time in the House, I voted 
for many such pieces of legislation, and all of it did not 
start with the White House.
    Senator Kennedy. Well, we do things a little differently in 
the Senate. I am not saying that the House is wrong. You 
probably do it better than we do. But my colleagues normally 
will not consider anything until they know where the White 
House is.
    Secretary Fudge. Well, I will find out, sir, because I 
think we need to do as much as possibly can.
    Senator Kennedy. OK. Well, I thank you for that, Madam 
Secretary.
    Let me make sure I understand. You personally, on behalf of 
HUD, are supportive of asking Congress to give us the relief. 
Is that right?
    Secretary Fudge. I personally, yes, but as you say, that is 
not my decision to make.
    Senator Kennedy. I know. Have you talked to anyone at the 
White House about our request?
    Secretary Fudge. I have not, but I will make sure that I do 
it right away.
    Senator Kennedy. OK. Can you tell me who you will talk to?
    Secretary Fudge. I will talk with OMB where this started, 
and ultimately they are the people who are responding on behalf 
of the President and the White House. I will call Director 
Young today.
    Senator Kennedy. Can you tell me when we will get the 
answer?
    Secretary Fudge. I am going to call today. Now, I do not 
know when that answer will be, but as soon as I get an answer, 
I will make sure you get it right away.
    Senator Kennedy. OK. So what I am hearing from you is, 
despite the letter, the White House has not said yes. Or am I 
mistaken?
    Secretary Fudge. I do not know, sir, because I have not 
been that involved in it. It goes between the White House and 
OMB, as I have said. But I will make sure that I find out the 
status. That I will do.
    Senator Kennedy. OK. If you could--I know you, Madam 
Secretary. If we could get an answer.
    Secretary Fudge. I will.
    Senator Kennedy. My people deserve an answer, and this has 
gone on--you know, this has been like rope-a-dope, OK? And this 
has gone on, and in order for us to get it done in the 
Congress, we are going to have to have a request by the 
President. We all know that. And there has just been too much 
dodging, bobbing, and weaving. I am a pretty simple guy. I like 
breakfast food, and I like straight answers. And if you could 
ask the White House to just give me a straight answer yes or 
on, I would be eternally grateful.
    Secretary Fudge. That I will do.
    Senator Kennedy. And I will send you a fruit basket.
    Secretary Fudge. I will ask them for a straight answer.
    Senator Kennedy. Thank you so much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Fudge. You are welcome, sir.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
    The next three Senators are Senator Tester, then Senator 
Moran, and then Senator Warren. I have to duck out to do some 
questioning in the Ag Committee about climate, so Senator 
Tester is recognized for 5 minutes. If you would then just turn 
it to Senator Moran, who will----
    Senator Tester [presiding]. I will. But before you leave, 
Mr. Chairman, I think it is incumbent upon me to point out that 
Senator Moran, always being politically correct, has your book 
off his right shoulder.
    With that, I want to turn to you, Secretary Fudge. There 
are many challenges across the country for folks trying to 
access housing. It is true in Ohio, as you know, as well as in 
Pennsylvania, certainly true in Montana. It is true in our 
cities and towns, but it is also true in rural areas--some 
would call then ``frontier areas''--and on tribal lands where 
oftentimes communities need more specific help to make Federal 
programs work to access the resources that are available.
    So, Secretary Fudge, how would HUD ensure that new or 
additional housing resources make it into those rural/frontier 
and tribal communities?
    Secretary Fudge. Senator, thank you so much, and thank you 
as always for the discussions we have had about this over the 
last few months. I appreciate your insight and input.
    The Jobs Plan does specifically set aside resources for 
Indian country and for rural communities. As you know, HUD's 
mission is to take care of housing everywhere. We do not 
differentiate between urban and rural, and we understand very 
much the needs of rural communities as well where we talk about 
building supportive infrastructure and climate resilience and 
community development. We know that it takes a whole of 
Government to make these things happen.
    So between the work that we do at HUD, the work that is 
done at USDA, we are very confident that with the Jobs Plan we 
can really make a significant increase and a significant 
downpayment and make clear that we believe in the expansion and 
empowering of communities, especially rural communities.
    Senator Tester. Well, that is good. I just think it is 
really important, because they do not have the resources, they 
do not have the planners, they do not have the ability to get 
these funds easily. And as pointed out by Senator Menendez, it 
is important in those communities, too, because, quite frankly, 
there is a shortage of housing all across the country. There is 
significant need. But there are examples of successful existing 
programs that help ease the shortage when these programs are 
utilized. There are tax credits that can be leveraged when 
available and examples of local communities enhancing their 
resources through public-private partnerships.
    So, Secretary Fudge, how can we ensure that Federal 
resources for housing are fully utilized to get assistance to 
as many people and as many communities as possible?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, Senator, you know that for a very 
long time we have only had--truly in terms of the private part, 
we have had the low-income housing tax credits, which have been 
very, very helpful. But in the Jobs Plan, there is another tax 
credit, the neighborhood homes investment tax credit, that 
would also help us leverage more public resources. And then, of 
course, there are all the other programs that HUD can assist 
with where we have the Native American block grants and the 
housing block grants.
    I think that if you pull all of these things together, you 
are going to find the resources to make not only the rural 
communities and, of course, Native communities expand their 
housing options; we are able to build new housing with the 
resources that have been put into the Jobs Plan; as well, we 
can talk about really then starting to talk about resilient 
communities, which we know that we can do. But the Jobs Plan 
makes sure that all of those resources are there together. With 
HOME and other programs from HUD, I think we can make it 
happen.
    Senator Tester. OK. Secretary Buttigieg, I want to talk to 
you a little bit about charging stations. I think it is really 
important we make the transition, and I think it is going to 
happen regardless. It could happen quicker if we are a little 
more aggressive, and I think the charging stations are part of 
it.
    My question to you is: In Build Back Better, how is this 
going to work? Is this a revolving loan fund, or is the 
Government going to build charging stations? Or are we going to 
give loans out to businesses who want to put charging stations 
at convenience stores or grocery stores or wherever it may be? 
Can you tell me what the vision is there?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you, Senator. It is a very 
important question, and it is one of policy design that I think 
will vary based on some of the geographies that we are looking 
at.
    The economics of installing a charging station may pencil 
in, for example, a luxury apartment building in the middle of 
the city such that no assistance is required at all. On the 
other end of the spectrum, there are a lot of locations, 
especially in more spread out or rural areas, where there 
simply might not be a return unless there is some kind of 
support.
    So I would not say that the vision is that all charging 
stations in the country or even most of them or any of them 
need to be owned and operated by the Federal Government. This 
is a great opportunity for leverage and to make sure that the 
dollars are being put to use in a way that maximizes the 
availability.
    Of course, our support is not just in financing the 
establishment or the construction of the stations, but also 
just in siting them, and that is where we have work we can 
build on in the alternative fuels corridors designations that 
have been going on, which DOT does in partnership with the 
Department of Energy, just to establish where across our 
highway network we need to make sure there are charging 
stations, whether the market would provide them or not, so that 
range anxiety does not hold Americans back from adopting EVs.
    Senator Tester. Just a statement before I turn it over to 
Senator Moran. I will really hope that when it comes to roads 
and bridges infrastructure, we continue to rely on existing 
formulas. If we start screwing around with that, it gets pretty 
dicey pretty quick. Thank you.
    Senator Moran.
    Senator Moran. Chairman Tester, thank you. Chairman Tester, 
over my right shoulder is another book that you might recognize 
as well, so I am not currently politically correct as I can be 
in this setting.
    Secretary Buttigieg, thank you for joining us. You, too, 
Madam Secretary. I am pleased to have the opportunity to visit 
with you this morning, but I am going to focus on the 
Department of Transportation.
    Mr. Secretary, let me raise two topics with you. COVID-19 
had, as you know, a devastating impact on the airline industry, 
and Congress and the Administration responded in a number of 
ways to help repair the damage that was done by lack of 
commercial air travel. One of the industries that was also 
affected by that circumstance is the manufacturing sector of 
which Kansas is one of the prime places in which aviation 
manufacturing occurred.
    With the help of Senator Warner from this Committee and 
Senator Cantwell, the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, we 
were successful--it was successful in having passed 
legislation, the Aviation Manufacturing Jobs Protection 
Program. One of the discussions was about who should be 
responsible for implementing that program, and the conclusion 
was the U.S. Department of Transportation. So in your realm of 
responsibilities, you have implementation of this legislation.
    It is important to me. I introduced and sponsored the 
legislation that became an amendment to the COVID relief 
package.
    I would ask you--I mean, the Department has published 
information on steps eligible businesses need to take prior to 
submitting an application. But there is not more definitive 
instructions than that. Your Department has been kind to me. I 
intend to have a forum in Wichita or at least in Kansas, and 
your team has volunteered, once they know more, to be a 
participant in that program trying to explain to aviation 
manufacturers what the program is, how they can take advantage 
of it, and how we can protect our workforce in aviation.
    Do you have any ideas at this point about the timeframe in 
which these funds will become eligible and when I should be 
looking at scheduling and asking your staff to join me to try 
to explain it to a group of businesses and employees that are 
significantly interested?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, thank you. We are moving quickly 
to make sure this is implemented successfully, accountably, 
and, of course, in a timely fashion. As you point out, the 
impact on air carriers is probably better understood in the 
public than the impact on manufacturers, and so this important 
program really will have a powerful economic impact.
    Unlike some of the other COVID relief plans that sent 
dollars through existing mechanisms, this required us to stand 
up a new one, and we want to make sure that we get it right.
    I can tell you that DOT's most senior leadership is heavily 
engaged. We have established a Senior Advisory Council 
involving every relevant part of the Department to make sure 
that we are taking the right steps. And to your question, I 
hope to have an application process fully defined and out for 
applications later on this summer and would welcome that 
opportunity for DOT personnel to be there to help explain it to 
potential applicants.
    Senator Moran. Thank you for your obvious knowledge and 
awareness of this program and presumably, seemingly--
``seemingly'' is a better word--involvement in a personal level 
on the part of you as the Secretary. And thanks for committing 
your staff to helping me help explain what opportunities exist.
    Let me turn to a renewable energy question in regard to 
transit. One of the things that I think has happened is that 
with the public transit programs that are attempting to 
accelerate the transition of our bus fleets from diesel and 
gasoline to cleaner energy alternatives, it seems to me that 
these programs have overwhelmingly favored certain renewable 
fuels--and by that I think those words mean electric--to the 
diminution of other cleaner fuels such as renewable natural gas 
or natural gas. And as a result, those bus programs that those 
renewable fuels, particularly renewable natural gas, make a lot 
of sense, I do not think they are going through the process to 
seek the funds because of what I think is maybe perhaps a 
perceived or perhaps a real bias or prejudice one way or the 
other. I would ask that you take a look at being more balanced 
in that view. There are buses--and I think I am particularly 
probably talking about rural communities--in which renewable 
natural gas is a viable and valuable and environmentally sound 
alternative to electric vehicles.
    I would ask you to enable the transit agencies to pursue 
the cleanest available vehicles that suit the needs of the 
fleet and the public transit infrastructure. It is better to 
get us in a position using renewable natural gas or natural gas 
to reduce emissions than those buses continuing in their 
current state without the Federal support because they are not 
converting to electric. And there are some issues with 
electric, as Senator Tester was saying about the charging 
stations, also the important elements that make up where 
batteries come from are outside the United States. So there are 
some issues with this.
    I am just looking for you to commit that there is a place 
that the Department of Transportation should recognize for 
renewable natural gas and natural gas.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. We certainly have a 
role for natural gas vehicles that are producing fewer 
emissions than, for example, a diesel vehicle. Part of the 
issue, of course, is that in a program that is designed to 
minimize emissions, a vehicle with zero tailpipe emissions will 
typically be more competitive. But as you note, sometimes what 
is right in one region may be different from another, or there 
may be different resources available to different transit 
authorities. We will continue to try to tailor what we are 
doing so that it makes sense on the ground.
    Senator Moran. I appreciate that. Mr. Secretary, as you 
know, what is valuable and practical in your largest city in 
Indiana or my largest city in Kansas may not be the most 
practical or valuable solution in a rural community of several 
hundred or several thousands people. And we sometimes think of 
transit as being the large cities' way of moving people. But as 
you know, in our States it affects lots of seniors and disabled 
individuals and getting to the doctor and getting to the 
grocery store in ways that are different than what a city mass 
transit program would look like.
    Secretary Buttigieg. I absolutely agree, yes.
    Senator Moran. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Brown [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Moran.
    Senator Warren from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Senator Warren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Fudge, we have discussed the importance of 
addressing our Nation's affordable housing crisis head on, and 
I know that you are committed to increasing the number of 
affordable units available to families. But those homes have to 
be built somewhere, and too many communities around the country 
with restrictive zoning laws that were born out of racial 
segregation prevent new affordable housing units from being 
built.
    Using exclusionary zoning to keep families, often lower-
income families and families of color out of certain 
neighborhoods, is wrong. And over time the harm really adds up. 
Exclusionary practices drive up the cost of housing for 
everyone and reduce the amount of available land.
    So, Secretary Fudge, at your confirmation hearing, you told 
this Committee that it is important that we get rid of the 
notion of ``not in my back yard.'' How does that ``not in my 
back yard'' approach impede efforts to address the affordable 
housing crisis?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, first off, thank you, Senator, for 
our ongoing conversations about this. The first thing that it 
does is it increases the cost of housing, and it limits where 
we can build housing. If you have restrictive zoning 
ordinances, then there are two things that happen or can 
happen. One is that where there is available land, you cannot 
build or the zoning is so onerous that it costs you more money 
to build. Maybe they put all kinds of restrictions on it that 
increase the cost of buying a property.
    The other thing it does is it just basically says to people 
in our communities, ``We do not want you to live in our 
neighborhood if you are low-income, if you are a person of 
color.''
    And so what we have found is that these laws have been 
around so very long that the Jobs Plan now gives us the 
opportunity to go into communities with some incentives to 
assist them in how we discuss it, how we could give them the 
kind of technical assistance to change it, how we engage 
communities so that we can have a better narrative about why we 
should allow new housing and housing that is not restrictive in 
communities that historically have prevented us from building.
    Senator Warren. Right, so let me follow up on that. How 
would incentives help? Aren't these changes that the Federal 
Government can just make on its own to get this housing built? 
Or why do you need these incentives?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, they really cannot--a lot of the 
zoning laws are really just local--they are local ordinances, 
many of which we cannot change as the Federal Government. Now, 
we can talk about discrimination overall. We can talk about 
civil rights overall. But we cannot just go into a community 
and change all of their zoning or planning ordinances. And that 
is why we want to engage communities with conversation, with 
technical assistance, to talk to them about how they can change 
them, how they could--maybe we can come to some agreement that 
makes them not as restrictive and not as costly.
    Senator Warren. Well, I completely agree with the direction 
you are going here. My American Housing and Economic Mobility 
Act includes a new $10 billion housing innovation grant program 
that would provide funding so that local governments can use it 
to build things like parks or schools if they are actively 
removing unnecessary barriers to building affordable units in 
their communities. Eligible reforms would include things like 
changing bans on multifamily construction, revising minimum lot 
size requirements, or passing inclusionary zoning ordinances.
    So let me ask, Secretary Fudge, could this kind of grant 
program make a difference in pushing communities to expand the 
supply of affordable housing?
    Secretary Fudge. There is no question but that it could be 
helpful.
    Senator Warren. Good.
    Secretary Fudge. And it is certainly something that I would 
like to really get into some more detail with you about, 
because until we can get to that point that we can include the 
kinds of things you are talking about, we are going to forever 
have people locked out of communities of opportunity, giving 
the opportunity to go to better schools, to have better jobs, 
and to build wealth. So I would very much like us to continue 
that conversation.
    Senator Warren. All right, and I very much want to work 
with you on this. You know, I was so glad to see President 
Biden call for the elimination of exclusionary zoning and to 
end harmful land use policies as part of his American Jobs 
Plan. And now I have got a proposal ready to go on this. Taking 
on our affordable housing crisis requires a comprehensive 
strategy, and reducing exclusionary zoning and land use 
restrictions has to be a part of this.
    So thank you, Secretary Fudge, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Warren.
    Senator Cortez Masto from Nevada is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 
And thank you to both Secretaries Buttigieg and Fudge for this 
great conversation and the good work that you are doing.
    Let me start off with Secretary Buttigieg. I had the 
pleasure of speaking with Acting Administrator Fernandez at her 
nomination hearing about the ability for capital investment 
grant project sponsors, specifically in my State, the Regional 
Transportation Commission in Washoe County, to be able to 
utilize its project cost savings, further enhancing their 
specific project corridors. I am going to include for the 
record a question on whether the Department will reward project 
sponsors who are good stewards of taxpayer dollars that come in 
on time and under budget with the ability to repurpose those 
funds to other important elements of an existing federally 
funded project within their community. So I am going to submit 
that for the record.
    Senator Cortez Masto. I do want to talk to you about Smart 
Communities. I know that President Biden included a call for 
building on really an Obama era Smart Cities Challenge Program 
with $1 billion annually in his infrastructure proposal. Can 
you talk to me about why this is important? Why are Smart 
Communities important? Why this proposal?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. Let me mention about the 
structure of the program and the substance of the program. I 
was a mayor when the Smart Cities Challenge came out and saw 
the impact it had even on cities like mine that were not even 
participating in the competition. It stimulated a race to the 
top and encouraged local communities to do what they do best, 
which is innovate. So that kind of such with an emphasis on 
sharing ideas and an emphasis working directly with local 
communities we think was very powerful and something we could 
build on.
    In terms of the substance of the vision, it is really about 
making sure that we future-proof our investments and are taking 
advantage of the extraordinary change that is coming to 
transportation and certainly will be across the 2020s. That 
change could be enormously empowering and beneficial on 
everything from climate to equity to job creation, but it will 
not be that way on its own. It is why we have to have a lot of 
intention and good policies behind it and, of course, 
resources, which is why you see it reflected in the President's 
vision.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Well, thank you, and I could not 
agree more. And I do agree that the incentive is so important, 
and that is why when I first got here to the Senate, I 
introduced the Moving FIRST Act to bring back and expand the 
Obama era Smart Cities Challenge. I think it is so important 
that this incentive is out there. We have seen the benefits of 
it and the opportunities we have to embrace this advanced 
technology for our communities.
    I will tell you my bill is endorsed by the League of 
Cities, NACo, the Chamber of Commerce's Tech Division, and ATPA 
and the American Society of Civil Engineers. So I look forward 
to working with the Administration. I think this is a great, 
great opportunity here for our communities.
    But let us talk about the communities, and I only have so 
much time. Secretary Fudge, I could not agree more. You both 
know this better than anyone. Everything that we are working 
on, particularly the nexus between affordable housing, transit, 
and employment centers starts at the local level with zoning. 
Zoning, zoning, zoning, right? That is the key to all of this, 
and that is why at the Federal level we may incentivize, we may 
try to get dollars and resources out there, but it really 
starts with that initial planning, urban planning or rural 
planning and the zoning. And that is why it was important for 
me to introduce the Better PLAN ACT.
    Now, I absolutely support what Senator Menendez is doing 
with his legislation on Livable Communities. The Better PLAN 
Act that I have introduced is really compatible with what we 
are trying to do here, which is enhancing that coordination 
between metropolitan planning organizations, local land use 
agencies, and housing stakeholders to align transportation 
plans with our local housing goals as well as ensuring that we 
are connecting them with those important employment centers.
    So, Secretary Fudge, can you talk just a little bit about 
that nexus and why it is so important and why we have to engage 
local communities in this if we are really going to get it 
right?
    Secretary Fudge. Well, first off, let me just thank you for 
your continued focus on affordable housing. In our 
conversations, I have been so very pleased to know of all of 
the things that you are working on that I believe are going to 
be helpful. But as you talk about--and your State probably is 
the perfect example. If we cannot get people to jobs because 
they live in communities that are so isolated and/or so 
difficult to move people from good jobs to home, then it is a 
problem, whether it be a teacher, a firefighter, or anybody 
else. I think that we have to make sure that we understand that 
both of them are really infrastructure.
    But when you talk about building roads and bridges, you 
have to connect them to something, so let us not--why can we 
not connect them in the way that is beneficial to the people we 
represent, all of us? I represent people who need housing, who 
need public housing, low-income people. They have to rely on us 
to make sure that we plan appropriately, work together to make 
sure that what we are doing is going to be beneficial to them 
in the long run, and that means we have to have transportation 
that is smart, transportation that is accessible to where 
people live and work.
    Senator Cortez Masto. That is right. And let me add--and I 
know my time is up, but one other thing, where they live and 
work. But in my State they are working 24 hours, right? So the 
transit, that connectivity, that opportunity has to be 
available to everyone at all times, particularly if they are 
working a graveyard shift or a late shift or a day shift, 
whatever that may be. It is so important that we bring that 
nexus together for everybody and meet their needs where they 
are, so thank you.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto.
    Senator Scott from South Carolina is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Senator Scott. Thank you, Chairman Brown, and thank you to 
the panelists for being here today. I will start with Secretary 
Buttigieg.
    As you know, a number of my constituents in South Carolina 
were affected by the hack of the Colonial Pipeline earlier this 
month. They estimated that about 40 percent of the gas stations 
in South Carolina were without gas because of that hack. That 
means that real people and their lives are strained by the lack 
of access to gas. I know by talking to some of my constituents 
in Spartanburg and in Greenville, they were waiting an hour in 
the line to try to figure out how to get gas in their cars to 
take their kids to school or go to the grocery store.
    You called the Colonial Pipeline hack a ``wake-up call'' 
for the country's cybersecurity vulnerability. I actually agree 
with that statement wholeheartedly. I think there is another 
wake-up call that we are seeing as well, and I believe 
Secretary Jennifer Granholm said just last week when she 
admitted that pipelines are the best way to transport fuel. 
That has to be a wake-up call for the Administration that did 
not continue with the construction of the XL Pipeline within 
the first few weeks of the Administration.
    As Secretary of Transportation, do you agree with the 
Secretary of Energy when she says that pipelines are the best 
way to transport fuel?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, of course, it depends on the 
context. Nobody is proposing that we establish a pipeline that 
goes directly to every gas station or every community in the 
country, but----
    Senator Scott. Let me----
    Secretary Buttigieg. ----for certain----
    Senator Scott. ----give you more context then. Do you think 
that the important comments by the Secretary of Energy as it 
relates to transporting fuel through a pipeline is important 
enough for us to revisit the XL Pipeline project? Or does that 
statement not include the XL Pipeline from your perspective?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yeah, in my view, it does not support 
any change to the Administration's view on the XL Pipeline. It 
is certainly the case that over certain long distances in 
certain contexts it makes sense to have pipelines. After all, 
one thing our Department is very proud of is the work that we 
do through the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration to make sure that 2-plus-million miles of 
pipeline in the U.S. are safe.
    At the same time, the President is keeping his commitment 
that he made during the campaign to guide any decisions about 
pipelines or energy policy more generally based on climate 
responsibility as well as what makes sense for our economy in 
the long term.
    Senator Scott. So thank you for that answer. I will say 
that according to many experts that I have read, the XL 
Pipeline, stopping that project means you are going to carry 
that energy over the roads, over the rail, which actually 
increases our carbon footprint, not decreases our carbon 
footprint. So by not having the pipeline, we are actually doing 
more harm to the environment and not less harm. So that is a 
confusing position, but I am glad to see that there is an 
inconsistency between the two Secretaries.
    Let me move to HUD and ask a question of my friend 
Secretary Fudge as it relates to manufacturing housing. As you 
may recall, back in 2019 we passed bipartisan legislation that 
allowed for more manufactured housing to be a part of the 
strategy that we use to help home ownership become more 
affordable for people throughout the country. When would you 
expect HUD to issue guidance for the inclusion of manufactured 
housing in States and local governments' consolidated plans?
    Secretary Fudge. First off, thank you. It is good to see 
you Senator, and I thank you and appreciate your concern about 
manufactured housing. You know that we do have some guidelines 
and certainly the guidelines that were requested in 2019 I 
think probably got caught up in all of the things that were 
going along with COVID, but we believe that we will have 
something by the end of this year. We know we are little bit 
behind, but as I said, in 2019 I think COVID and trying to get 
CARES Act funding and other things out may have delayed it, but 
we are working on it as we speak, sir.
    Senator Scott. Well, as you would imagine, my State has a 
disproportionate share of the manufactured housing, and we 
experience lots of natural disasters, and I will say that the 
current state of manufactured housing has transformed 
positively where you have a stronger home, you have a more 
resilient home than ever imagined. And so whatever we can do to 
hit the accelerator on that I believe will be helpful to those 
folks who are on the margin, on the bubble, so to speak. They 
could be a homeowner or they could not be a homeowner, 
depending on how accessible manufactured housing is. So thank 
you very much for your commitment to move that forward.
    Secretary Fudge. My pleasure, because I am a strong 
proponent as well, Senator, so we will get right on it.
    Senator Scott. Yes, ma'am, thank you.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Scott.
    Senator Van Hollen of Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary 
Fudge, thank you for your leadership, and I am pleased to see 
the American Jobs Plan include major provisions to increase the 
overall supply of housing and affordable housing and use 
Federal incentives to address discriminatory local zoning 
practices.
    I was also pleased to see a reference there to the 
importance of continuing with affordable housing vouchers. 
Senator Young and I have introduced a bipartisan bill calling 
for the creation of 500,000 family stability and opportunity 
vouchers. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has 
indicated that any plan to address affordable housing for the 
lowest-income households has to include an expansion of the 
voucher program, and this is designed to provide wrap-around 
services to families, and it has been a proven way of helping 
lift people out of poverty.
    I have mentioned this to you before. We are going to 
introduce it again soon. What I want to ask today is just a 
commitment from you to get back to me and to Senator Young as 
to whether or not the Biden administration will fully endorse 
this proposal. That is my request today, that you get back to 
me.
    Secretary Fudge. The answer is yes, I will get back to you. 
Happy to do it, sir.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. And, you know, speaking of 
discrimination, one of the most insidious forms of 
discrimination is landlords denying families, you know, rent 
based on source of income, and we have got to address that, I 
believe, in this legislation. Nobody should be denied access to 
housing because they are relying on an affordable housing 
voucher.
    Secretary Buttigieg, I applaud the inclusion of the $20 
billion in the American Jobs Plan to help reconnect communities 
that had been split by prior Federal infrastructure 
investments. We have talked about this before. I was just in 
Baltimore City at the mayor this week at the site of what we 
call the ``Highway to Nowhere,'' 1\1/2\ miles of highway that 
was stopped because people in the better-off part of town 
succeeded in stopping it, but not before 1\1/2\ miles of 
highway were built that split an African-American community and 
neighborhoods. We have got to heal these wounds, bring the 
community together. It is a perfect example of why those funds 
need to be used.
    I want to ask you now about the transportation funding 
formula for a second, because if a State like the State of 
Maryland wants to build a highway, we just use our Federal 
formula funds, and we go ahead. We get 80 percent Federal 
funding. If we want to invest in a transit line, a new start, 
we need to apply for a grant; we need to get approval from the 
FTA; and then at most we get 60 percent Federal match. And, 
currently, there is no new start with the full funding grant 
agreement of more than 50 percent Federal funds. So, clearly, 
if you are a State and you want your dollars to travel faster, 
the Federal Government is now incentivizing highways over 
transit.
    Can you agree that we should change this and commit to work 
on changing this as part of the American Jobs Plan?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, one thing I would point to is 
that the once-in-a-lifetime investments that are contained in 
the American Jobs Plan roll out on a different basis. You know, 
you saw the President's vision include $85 billion for public 
transit and transit related investments--not that we do not 
care about highways, roads, and bridges. Indeed, there is over 
$100 billion committed to that purpose. But we are trying to 
base it off where the needs actually are, and that is why you 
will see that different ratio encapsulated in the President's 
vision for that major investment we need to make for the 
future.
    Senator Van Hollen. Got it. Well, I want to work with you 
on what the cost share is for the States, because right now in 
our ongoing programs, there is a huge incentive to go for a 
highway investment rather than a transit investment, and that 
discourages States from using their dollars for transit, even 
when that makes the most sense, because the Federal dollar 
travels faster on the highway than on transit.
    Briefly, I know you agree that building Federal roads, 
bridges, or other infrastructure, we should do it in a way that 
is built to last, and if it is in a Federal floodplain or other 
area that will be impacted by climate change, we need to build 
with resilience.
    The Obama administration put in place the Federal Risk 
Management Standard. The GAO has said that that is a good way 
to save taxpayer dollars. The Trump administration tanked it. 
President Biden indicated that he was going to reinstate this 
really in the first week, but that has not happened.
    Can you speak to this and just commit to moving forward on 
this commonsense proposal?
    Secretary Buttigieg. With regard to that standard 
specifically, I will look into that and see if we can get more 
information on where it stands. More generally to your point, 
this is why resilience is such a focus of the Jobs Plan. I 
think there is a commonsense case to be made that if, let us 
say, a road washes out and climate change effects suggest it 
will wash out again next year if we put it back just the way it 
was, shouldn't our policy be able to tell the difference? And 
that is certainly part of what we mean when we say build back 
better.
    Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary. This 
is one thing you could do today that would help change that 
going forward before we even have to enact legislation. So I 
really encourage you to do that and hope you can get back to me 
on that. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you Senator Van Hollen.
    Senator Tillis from North Carolina is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Fudge 
and Secretary Buttigieg, congratulations on your confirmations, 
and thank you for being with us today.
    Secretary Buttigieg, I want to thank you for reaching out 
to me with the courtesy call before you went down to North 
Carolina, and I want to ask you a general question of maybe 
what you are hearing as you travel across the country. But when 
you were down in North Carolina, what takeaways were there in 
terms of the needs and priorities down in the State?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, one of the things I saw was just 
how rightly proud North Carolinians are about some of the 
visionary work that has been done to support and expand options 
in communities that are growing. With growth comes a lot of 
challenges, and they are good challenges to have, but still 
require forward-looking transportation policy.
    I also had a chance to see some of the extraordinary 
research that is going on, some of it supported with Federal 
and State transportation dollars, things that I could go on 
about for hours but I promise not to, in terms of, for example, 
optimizing pavement, which might not seem like a sizzling topic 
of great interest, but just a little difference in making a 
piece of pavement last longer in harsh weather could mean 
enormous savings for communities and the Federal Government. So 
it was a very instructive trip, and I look forward to 
continuing to be in touch on the progress that is being made 
there.
    Senator Tillis. Thank you. I am kind of curious. Speaking 
with legislative leaders and the Governor, one of the topics 
that has come up in North Carolina, I am curious if it is 
something that we are hearing across the country, is that with 
the billions of dollars that are down in the States and they 
are looking at flexible ways to use it, have you heard much in 
the way of trying to use some of the relief funds that right 
now are restricted from transportation projects to potentially, 
I think, California has about a $70 billion surplus, for 
example, and looking at maybe repurposing some of that for 
infrastructure projects?
    Secretary Buttigieg. So I think every State and local 
government that has gotten support is assessing how best to put 
it to use. I do want to emphasize that, of course, we want to 
make sure there is the right kind of flexibility for those 
dollars to be well spent, but would also flag the risk of 
spending the same dollar twice, so to speak, in terms of 
imagining that a dollar is unspent simply because it takes 
longer to get committed.
    To give you an example, you can imagine a transit authority 
that sees that their ridership went down 90 percent or 80 
percent in 2020. Now they see it maybe back at 50 percent. It 
might still be down 30 percent next year. And so you will not 
see some of those dollars that are designed to keep them afloat 
and obligated until next year, maybe later because of the 
reimbursement pattern. But that was part of the congressional 
intent, and so I just want to note that there was a multiyear 
vision for some of how these dollars would move.
    Senator Tillis. Just maybe back as a baseline question, we 
have got various views around Washington now about what defines 
interference. In your role as Secretary, how do you define 
infrastructure?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I view infrastructure as the 
foundation that makes it possible for Americans to live a life 
of their choosing. That can include the transportation 
infrastructure that makes it possible for you to get to work or 
school. It could include the Internet infrastructure that makes 
it possible for you to communicate with work or school, whether 
you are physically moving around or not.
    We in the Administration, of course, also believe that 
tearing down a barrier in the form of, let us say, unaffordable 
elder care or child care amounts to part of the care 
infrastructure that helps America work. I recognize and respect 
there are different views about how we define these things. My 
hope is that even if we agree to disagree on a philosophical 
question about what to call something, we have a good chance to 
agree on good policies that will make a difference for the 
American people.
    Senator Tillis. Just on that note, I agree with the first 
part of your assessment of infrastructure, which I think has 
traditionally been defined that way, along with broadband, 
which I think the modern definition absolutely should include 
it. It is not that I am necessarily opposed to some of the 
other initiatives that we are casting a wider net and calling 
``infrastructure,'' but I think that most of the American 
people, when they think about infrastructure, they think about 
the things that are in your lane in the Department of 
Transportation and would like to have a separate discussion 
about the efficacy, the affordability, and the long-term 
viability of those other programs.
    Just really quickly, and this is for Secretary Fudge and 
Secretary Buttigieg, I feel like Davis-Bacon that, you know, 
many say is an artifact from the Jim Crow era that was 
preventing minorities to get into construction work, now we are 
using it maybe a little bit differently. The concern that I 
have is if we are going to impose these higher labor costs on 
infrastructure projects, on affordable housing projects, aren't 
we really just doubting the impact that we can have with the 
use of the Federal taxpayers' money? And, Secretary Fudge, we 
can go to you first.
    Secretary Fudge. I really do not think that we are, and 
that is why we are putting in place things that the Jobs Plan 
will help us to bridge the gap for affordable housing, what it 
costs to build it, what people can pay for it. If you look at 
the Jobs Plan in its totality, you will see that these issues 
have actually been addressed within the bill.
    Senator Tillis. Well, you know, I have just seen the cost 
of labor in these construction projects can nearly double the 
cost of labor, so I am having a hard time getting my head 
around how that is consistent with trying to produce more 
access to affordable housing. But my time has expired. We will 
take this up off the Committee. Thank you very much.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
    Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Tillis.
    The Senator from Minnesota, Senator Smith, is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Senator Smith. Thank you, Chair Brown, and welcome, 
Secretary Fudge and Secretary Buttigieg. It is great to be with 
you virtually.
    I am going to try to get to two questions, if I can, for 
both of you, and the first question has to do with this. You 
know, as we get ready, I hope, to be making bold and 
transformational investments in infrastructure, we need to 
focus on how to make sure that the benefits of those 
investments and the jobs that they create are broadly shared. 
And I think that we can all acknowledge that in the past, 
communities of color and low-income communities have often not 
seen the jobs that were created by Federal and State 
infrastructure investments. And, you know, we have seen this 
story unfold over and over again in roads and bridge 
construction, but also in public housing construction and 
maintenance, too.
    So I think now in this moment we have an opportunity to 
change this, but it is going to take a clear strategy and 
intention. So that is what my question is for you. How do you 
intend to work on this issue in your agencies so that we can 
make sure that communities of color and low-income communities 
are benefiting from the job opportunities that are created by 
these significant infrastructure investments? And maybe I will 
start with Secretary Buttigieg.
    Secretary Buttigieg.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. We share this 
priority. We think it is very important both in terms of the 
communities that benefit from the overall asset that might be 
added in the form of a transit line or a bridge or road or 
whatever it may be, but also those who get to participate in 
the business opportunities that are created, the ownership of 
the businesses and certainly the workers.
    Yesterday with Secretary Walsh, Mayor Bowser here in 
Washington, and others, we visited the work site of the 
Frederick Douglass Bridge, which takes South Capitol across the 
river to Anacostia, and they had very effectively used local 
hire and project labor agreements to make sure that the local 
community, the diverse local community was reflected on the 
work site. I think continuing to partner with local agencies 
and authorities with labor organizations and everybody else who 
has a stake in this really needs to remain a priority so that 
we create the most opportunity we can for including or 
especially for those who have been excluded in the past.
    Senator Smith. Thank you, Secretary Buttigieg.
    And, Secretary Fudge, you and I have talked about this 
before. What opportunities do we have for creating jobs for 
people living in public housing or in poor communities as we 
are, I dearly hope, making significant investments in housing 
in those communities?
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you very much, and we have talked 
about it. I think there are a number of things this Jobs Plan 
really can do. Apprenticeship programs so that we can prepared 
people for some of these construction jobs, we know there are 
going to be more than 100,000 of them. We can talk about doing 
things like making sure that certain contracts and certain 
employees come from certain geographic areas. We can create 
goals for contracts. There are many things we can do and should 
do, and the Jobs Plan is going to allow us the opportunity to 
do just those things.
    Senator Smith. Thank you. Thank you very much. I really 
look forward to working with both of you on this. I think this 
is extremely important.
    Secretary Buttigieg, I want to come back to you on a 
question about the American Jobs Plan proposal to include a $20 
billion grant program to help reconnect communities that have 
been split apart by the creation of Federal highways. So just 
give me a minute to tell you about the story of the Rondo 
neighborhood in St. Paul. Rondo was a lively community with 
hundreds of prospering Black businesses and family homes. 
Eighty percent of St. Paul's African-American population lived 
in Rondo, including a strong and flourishing middle class. And 
then in the late 1950s and 1960s--you know the story--
construction of the I-94 interstate literally ripped this 
community in half. Seven hundred homes owned by Black families 
were destroyed; 300 businesses gone forever; and the 
destruction of these homes and businesses had a devastating 
impact on this community: $157 million in home equity lost. 
That is equity that never was able to be passed on and has 
clearly contributed to the intergenerational wealth gap that we 
see so significantly in Rondo, in Minnesota, and the whole 
country.
    But here is the good news. The amazing community called 
``ReConnect Rondo'' has a vision for how to build a land bridge 
over the I-94 freeway and create an African-American arts and 
enterprise and culture and living community.
    So could you, in the few seconds that I have left, talk to 
us a little bit about how that vision for ReConnect Rondo fits 
with what your vision is for that $20 billion grant program?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, thank you. Very briefly, this is 
certainly an example of what we have been talking about in 
terms of how Federal dollars often serve to segregate, divide, 
or destroy neighborhoods of color, and as your example 
illustrates, this is not something that was confined to one 
region of the country. It happened in so many different places.
    So now the question is: How can we right that wrong? 
Sometimes in some geographies, that has meant removing, 
replacing, or submerging a highway. In others, it means working 
around it, and that is, I think, an elegant quality of the 
proposal you are describing. And these are the kinds of 
initiatives that we want to support with Federal dollars in 
visions like the American Jobs Plan, again, largely because we 
know in a previous generation it was Federal dollars sometimes 
that created the problem to begin with.
    Senator Smith. Thank you, Secretary. That was no accident, 
of course, that that is where the route for the I-94 freeway 
was chosen, and I think there is an opportunity to restore that 
community. And I would welcome you coming to Minnesota to see 
their vision and to imagine with us what we could do there.
    Thank you very much.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Smith.
    Senator Cramer of North Dakota is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for 
having this important hearing. And to the two Administration 
officials, thanks for being here.
    Mr. Secretary, thanks for the nice conversation yesterday, 
and as you know, I sit both on this Committee and the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, both of which have some 
jurisdiction over the main titles in the surface transportation 
authorization bill. Last month, we held a hearing in EPW on the 
solvency of the Highway Trust Fund, and it was pointed out them 
during the hearing that the fund would be nearly solvent if 
transit programs were actually appropriated rather than being 
included in the Highway Trust Fund distribution.
    Now, I appreciate the point and I assume there is not an 
appetite in Congress right now to strip transit from the 
Highway Trust Fund. But, traditionally, Congress has always 
kept an 80-20 split between highway and transit programs, 
respectively. And so as we work toward this reauthorization, 
maybe you could give me your perspective or I will just ask 
straight up. Do you agree that we should keep the 80-20 split 
between highways and transit?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I certainly recognize the role 
that that split in the formula has traditionally played. I 
would say the Jobs Plan thinks beyond the year-to-year funding 
that we are accustomed to because we know that a different 
ratio may characterize the once-in-a-lifetime transformational 
investments that we think we need to make as a country. So I 
think even though legislatively those two things may come to be 
joined together potentially, depending on how things proceed, I 
would say conceptually we are really talking about two 
different things.
    Of course, I think most of the communities we speak to are 
perhaps less concerned with some of the technicalities than 
they are with making sure that these priorities are funded. And 
I know that that is certainly important in rural areas that 
have a lot on the line in terms of whether we continue to 
support critical connections, whether we are talking about 
roads and highway, transit, or other means of getting around.
    I want to echo what some of your colleagues have mentioned, 
that transit, I think, in the public imagination sometimes is 
conceived of as strictly a big-city phenomenon. But, of course, 
it is often in small communities that it can make a big 
difference as well.
    Senator Cramer. Again, you know, underfunding highways to, 
you know, this other issue, it has obviously a detriment as 
well. So the bottom line is we need enough money obviously to 
do all the things we want to do. In the meantime, I would like 
to hang onto at least as much of the formula as we can, if not 
all of it.
    You know, I am going to switch for just a second. Secretary 
Fudge, great to see you again, by the way. I look forward to 
working with you some more. As you know, access to affordable 
housing obviously is a challenge for a lot of Americans, 
including those in rural America. So both highways and housing 
have a lot in common. The Housing Choice Voucher program at HUD 
helps about 5 million low-income people afford safe housing and 
decent housing in the private market. And it is administered, 
of course, by local public housing agencies, PHAs, as you know, 
and families that receive a voucher have 60 days to find a 
unit. They then pay 30 percent of household income toward rent 
and utilities while the PHA pays the landlord the remaining 
rent. And HCVs increase, of course, stability. They reduce 
homelessness and each year lift more than 1 million people out 
of poverty.
    As HUD acknowledges in its 2019 Evidence Matters report, 
landlord participation in the program determines the number of 
available units--it is pretty obvious, right?--and their 
geographic distribution, of course, which in turn affects 
tenant mobility and healthy housing, fair housing.
    Unfortunately, there are things like rent payment 
standards, administrative processes, and misrepresentations of 
the program that can cause uncertainty in the operations and 
deter owners from participating in the program. In fact, we 
know that landlord participation is declining, with an average 
of 10,000 housing providers having left the program each year 
between 2010 and 2016.
    So as part of improving the voucher holders' access, today 
Senator Coons and I introduced a bill to increase resources and 
reduce the programmatic barriers in the HCV program that will 
help attract, hopefully attract and retain landlords. It is 
called the ``Choice in Affordable Housing Act''. It provides 
$500 million to create what we call the ``Herschel Lashkowitz 
Housing Partnership Fund'', which is named after a long-time 
State Senator and mayor of Fargo who was a strong advocate for 
affordable housing. Just quickly, it would offer a signing 
bonus to landlord with units in low-poverty areas, provide 
security deposit assistance so that the tenants can better 
afford to meet the required deposits, provide a financial 
bonus, increase funding to the tribal HUD VASH program and use 
some neighborhood-specific data, and reduce the specs and 
delays. I just say all that as my time runs out, Secretary 
Fudge, just to tell you that I am looking forward to spending 
more time with you to talk about the specifics as we roll it 
out.
    Secretary Fudge. I look forward to it.
    Senator Cramer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Cramer.
    Senator Sinema from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Senator Sinema. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you to our witnesses for being here today. Secretary Fudge, it 
is wonderful to see you again.
    You know, we have a lot of work to do to expand 
opportunities for first-time homebuyers and ensure that there 
is sufficient affordable housing available to Arizonans. The 
state of the housing market in Arizona is particularly 
challenging right now. It is a very hot market, and I hear from 
my friends and neighbors that a home will go on the market in 
Phoenix and receive dozens of offers within 48 hours. Many of 
these offers exceed the traditional 20-percent downpayment. 
Some offers are entirely in cash, and that shows the highly 
competitive nature of the market. I have even heard of homes 
that are selling for 20 or 30 percent over the list price paid 
entirely in cash.
    So Arizonans who are looking to buy their first home are 
feeling very frustrated, and it is becoming too expensive to 
buy a home in Arizona. This has real implications for Arizona 
families. Delaying home ownership makes it harder for families 
to build long-term wealth, and it can force changes to other 
major life events, like taking a new job or getting married or 
starting a family.
    So what types of solutions do you think could alleviate 
some of the housing supply challenges that we are seeing in 
Arizona?
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you very much, Senator, for the 
question and just know that I appreciate our conversations as 
well during my confirmation, et cetera.
    Let me say there are a couple of things that the Jobs Plan 
is going to do to make this much better. We know that the 
biggest problem is that there is just not enough supply of 
affordable and low-income housing. It just does not exist. And 
so one of the things that the Jobs Plan is going to do is 
create as many as 2 million new houses or housing units, in 
addition to, with some of the tax credits, we think we can add 
another 500,000 houses or units of housing.
    We also are talking about how we deal with assisting 
homebuyers, whether it be homebuyer assistance, technical 
assistance, downpayment assistance. We are working on all of 
those issues because we know that there are so many impediments 
to purchasing housing, but the biggest issue really is a supply 
issue. So that is the biggest thinking that we are working on, 
and that is a part of the jobs bill.
    Senator Sinema. Thank you, Secretary. I know that some of 
these shortages and price issues are also due to global supply 
chain issues, particularly lumber shortages, that are 
contributing to rising construction costs. So my next question 
relates to manufactured housing. So whether we are talking 
about traditional manufactured housing or the growth of tiny 
homes, it is clear that these products are going to play an 
important role in satisfying consumer demand and providing 
affordable choices.
    So what role do you believe that manufactured housing plays 
in addressing ongoing housing supply challenges? And how can we 
work collaborative to provide more safe, high-quality 
affordable choices to prospective homeowners?
    Secretary Fudge. I had an opportunity just last week to 
have a meeting with the home builders, and they have talked 
about the fact that lumber alone has gone up more than 200 
percent since COVID began. We know that the cost of trying to 
build a single-family house today based upon lumber costs, et 
cetera, has gone up more than $32,000. So the things that we 
are trying to do with resources like low-income tax credits, 
like HOME that can assist with bridging the gap between the 
cost of housing and making it more affordable for people to 
purchase, we have put in place a new tax credit as well. So 
those are things that have been considered within the jobs 
package, and I just do say to you that manufactured homes is an 
option that we too seldom look at. It is affordable, it is 
resilient, it is energy efficient, and it is something that we 
should do more and more of, because I think that it is quick to 
make sure that we can put in place, so it is fast to put in 
place, and it is just a good option, as are tiny homes and 
others. But I think the real issue becomes how do we make 
whatever the product is more affordable by the use of private 
investments, especially by way of tax credits.
    Senator Sinema. I agree. Before my time expires, I just 
want to ask you a final question about homelessness. We 
continue to see a larger number of individuals experiencing 
homelessness due to the economic damage from the pandemic. It 
is concerning, and we must ensure that our communities have the 
resources to provide safe, stable housing and other vital wrap-
around services that can help folks get back on their feet.
    So I wanted to raise with you that we are seeing a growing 
number of seniors experiencing homelessness in Arizona, and we 
have seen this trend on the rise for the past 2 years. Now, it 
is a challenging crisis, and there are no easy answers. But I 
would like to ask that our teams work together to identify some 
solutions to address senior homelessness and, of course, work 
to earn bipartisan support.
    Secretary Fudge. I would be happy to work with you. We have 
a lot of options that we can look at. Certainly, of course, 
Congress just did give us resources for emergency vouchers, so 
I would be happy to work with your team.
    Senator Sinema. Thank you so much, Secretary.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Sinema.
    Senator Daines from Montana is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Senator Daines. Thank you, Chairman.
    Secretary Fudge, on the matter of housing insecurity, you 
told the White House press pool on March 18th, ``I do not know 
where my Republican colleagues live if they do not think that 
there is not a problem, but there is.''
    With all due respect, contrary to your assertion that 
Republicans are out of touch with the difficulties of housing-
insecure Americans, whether urban or rural, we do understand. 
In fact, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, home 
prices rose about 11 percent between the fourth quarter of 2019 
and 2020 nationwide, and let me tell you, where I live, in 
Montana, annual price appreciation was 15.5 percent, the second 
fastest in the Nation. In fact, in my hometown of Bozeman, it 
has gotten to the point now where housing is not affordable. 
The median price is now around $700,000.
    Low-income families, seniors struggling to get by, young 
families just starting out, municipal workers that form the 
backbone of our communities, they cannot catch a break. And 
turning back to a point some of my colleagues have already 
raised, what concerns me is the fact that your agency intends 
to provide assistance to illegal immigrants at the same time 
American citizens are homeless.
    Considering that taxpayer dollars are a finite resource, 
should we really be extending housing assistance to persons who 
enter our country unlawfully when there are hundreds of 
thousands of homeless Americans, to say nothing of some 40,000 
homeless veterans, people who are willing to die for our 
freedoms in our country?
    Secretary Fudge. Again, I would say that we have no 
intention of violating the current law. I have said it. I mean 
it. What you are talking about is waiving the document 
requirement, which will not, in fact, make it easier for 
people, because we know that families who are ineligible 
eventually are going to be removed from the system. But we do 
need to give our agencies the ability to conduct determinations 
as to whether these people do qualify, because initially we do 
not know if they qualify or not. But our goal is to make sure 
that people are not sleeping on the street.
    And so we know that we are going to be able to meet your 
requirements and the requirements of the law. I am not at all 
concerned about the fact that the waiver is going to increase 
the number of illegal, undocumented people in this country.
    Senator Daines. Well, sheltering the homeless is critical, 
and as a former Member of Congress yourself, I know you will 
agree that taxpayer funds should be spent on citizens, and our 
first priority has to be our constituents.
    Secretary Fudge. Absolutely.
    Senator Daines. Shifting gears, we have witnessed record 
prices for wood products and other construction materials this 
spring, which has played a role in increases in the cost of 
housing, big increases. It is going to take some time for the 
supply chains to recover, but until then, construction costs 
are going to remain exorbitant.
    You have mentioned that one of the President's priorities 
is the construction of new affordable housing units. Secretary 
Fudge, how will HUD address increased costs of timber, plywood, 
and other critical building materials?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, that is a tough one, certainly, 
because, you know, unfortunately, HUD does not have the ability 
to determine what the market will get for lumber. But what we 
can do is to make that housing more affordable by some of the 
things that are in the Jobs Plan. We can assist with bridging 
the gap between what makes a payment affordable and not 
affordable. We can assist with, again, as I said, looking at 
downpayment, first-time homebuyer, looking at how we use tax 
credits.
    There are many things we can do to assist, but we really do 
not have the ability to determine what the cost is really going 
to be because the market drives a lot of that, and it is just 
something that is not within our purview to do.
    Senator Daines. One of the real challenges--and thank you, 
Secretary Fudge--has been inflation. We are already beginning 
to see the effects of inflation that diminishes the spending 
power certainly of so many working Americans. And it is the 
result of some of the ill-advised, this very partisan stimulus 
package. Another massive spending package before we even reach 
appropriations season will only serve to accelerate inflation 
and make the cost of housing more unaffordable for lower-income 
families at a time when they need help.
    I want to shift gears now and talk about permitting reform 
for Secretary Buttigieg. There are significant infrastructure 
needs in my State, a State like Montana--what is that?
    Chairman Brown. Sorry.
    Senator Daines. There are significant infrastructure needs 
in my State and throughout the country. We have got broad, 
bipartisan support for funding real infrastructure like roads, 
bridges, and ports, et cetera. I am going to cut to the chase 
here because I am out of time. Secretary Buttigieg, how does 
the Administration plan to address the issue of how long it 
takes to go through the permitting process? It can take up to 5 
years. It is a real problem. When you get the funds to put the 
infrastructure in, but then we are caught up in 5 years of red 
tape, how does the Administration plan to address this? And can 
you commit to working with Congress to significantly reducing 
permitting times to get these projects to the point where they 
are starting to dig?
    Secretary Buttigieg. I would welcome opportunities to work 
with Congress on this. Of course, I do not mean anything that 
would be cutting corners in terms of safety or environmental 
expectations, but where we see a process taking longer than it 
has to or duplication in permitting or an opportunity for our 
Department to be more user-friendly, helping to move these 
processes along, we would welcome that so that we minimize the 
length of time and the expense of any project funded with 
Federal dollars.
    Senator Daines. Thanks to both of you.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Daines.
    Senator Ossoff from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Buttigieg, there has been already early stage 
planning for passenger rail linking Atlanta and Charlotte, with 
a possible stop in the Athens area. There is also advanced 
discussion of rail connections between Atlanta and Savannah 
with a possible connection in the Macon area.
    The South is often left out of intercity passenger rail 
discussions. Will you please commit to working with my office 
to ascertain what can be accomplished through upcoming 
infrastructure legislation to expand intercity rail connections 
in the Southeast region and comment on such initiatives, if you 
see fit?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. Yes, I would welcome a 
chance to work with you on this. I think many of the most 
compelling opportunities for strong rail connections are in the 
South and the Southeast, and as you mentioned, it is not just 
the cities at the endpoints of these routes, but those in 
between, Macon on the one route to Athens or Commerce 
communities in the other. All of these could unlock opportunity 
throughout the region, and when that happens, it makes the 
country as a whole stronger, which is part of why the 
President's Jobs Plan includes such robust resources to expand 
access to quality rail in the U.S.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I would like to 
ask you a couple questions about infrastructure and transit in 
metro Atlanta, first about the MARTA system and then about the 
BeltLine project. As you well know and as we have discussed, 
since the mid-1960s MARTA has been helping folks get around 
metro Atlanta, but particularly as the pace of growth of the 
metro area has risen in the last couple of decades, we have 
chronically underinvested in this vital transit system. There 
is great interest in expanding bus rapid transit to connect, 
for example, destinations in Clayton and DeKalb and Gwinnett 
counties, also discussed rail extensions. Will you commit to 
working with my office, the city of Atlanta, and relevant 
regional planning authorities in the State of Georgia to 
develop a comprehensive plan to strengthen and expand MARTA 
service?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Absolutely. As we have discussed, both 
familiar routes and resources in MARTA and new possibilities 
around bus rapid transit can do a lot to alleviate congestion, 
expand opportunity, and, of course, that has climate benefits 
and air quality benefits, too. So we are always eager to find 
new ways to partner on that, and, again, I am glad that the 
President's American Jobs Plan has the resources we need to 
allow local authorities not just to hold onto what they have 
got, but to actually plan for the future and expand what is 
available to those they serve.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And touching on 
the BeltLine initiative, you know, there are over 150 
infrastructure projects nationwide that reuse existing or 
abandoned infrastructure and transit infrastructure, 
reimagining and reutilizing this space to create new mobility 
and quality of life, and the Atlanta BeltLine, 7 of the 22-mile 
loop of former freight rail have already been transformed into 
a multi-use trail with transit capacity, affordable housing, 
parks, and green space planned. There has been more than $7.9 
billion in private investment in this initiative. I would like 
the Federal Government to get involved in helping to complete 
this project.
    Will you please meet with my office in coming weeks to 
discuss what we can do to advance completion of the BeltLine? 
And I am so looking forward to welcoming you to Georgia 
tomorrow, and I think we will have the opportunity to inspect 
it.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you. Yes, really looking forward 
to a chance to see it in person, welcome a chance to connect 
with your office further on how to encourage development. And 
we take a lot of pride in the Federal dollars, I think in the 
TIGER Program, that went into helping establish the earlier 
phases of the BeltLine. Whenever you can reuse and repurpose 
resources like that, as you mentioned, it often can unlock 
private dollars that follow the public investments that have 
been made. And, of course, we need to focus on making sure it 
is accessible, that the housing that grows up around it is 
affordable. And I know that you have been emphatic about the 
importance of that, and I am eager to see it for myself.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary.
    And, finally, to touch on the importance of completing the 
Savannah Harbor Expansion Project, this is the deepening from 
approximately 42 to 47 feet of the Savannah River at the 
entrance to the port of Savannah. You and I discussed this 
earlier this week. I was in Savannah a couple of weeks ago 
meeting with Mayor Johnson, the port authorities, the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers. This project has been consistently over 
budget and behind schedule, but we are now very, very close to 
completing it. I secured a commitment from the President's 
nominee for the Deputy position at OMB a couple of months ago 
to prioritize this project.
    Mr. Secretary, will you commit to working with me and Mayor 
Van Johnson of Savannah to ensure that Savannah is timely and 
fully completing this deepening and expansion project, I hope 
by the end of this year?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, I look forward to working with 
you on this. This is something of not just regional but I think 
national interest given the size and capacity of this port, and 
it is important to us to see it through to timely completion.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Ossoff.
    Senator Warnock from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Senator Warnock. Thank you so very much, Chairman Brown, 
and thank you both, Secretary Fudge and Secretary Buttigieg, 
for your leadership. Congratulations on your appointment.
    On Monday, I had an opportunity to speak with Nuria 
Fernandez, the nominee for Federal Transit Administrator, about 
the capital investment grant program and the need to invest 
more in both urban and rural public transportation service for 
communities that need that investment.
    Secretary Buttigieg, I look forward to working with you on 
these critical transportation priorities, but today I want to 
talk to you about reconnecting communities, literally 
reconnecting them, and reversing the damage done to 
predominantly poor and Black communities during the 
construction of our interstate highway system.
    You and I have spent a little time together down in Atlanta 
and at Ebenezer Church where I serve. Are you familiar, do you 
remember the Downtown Connector or Interstate 75/85 that runs 
through the core of Atlanta right next to my church?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, I remember.
    Senator Warnock. And are you aware that its construction in 
the 1950s and 1960s displaced or separated historic Black 
neighborhoods in Atlanta? It literally split Sweet Auburn 
Avenue with all of these Black businesses that were thriving, 
split them in two?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, unfortunately, this is a pattern 
that a lot of federally supported highways in that period 
followed, and I am aware that that had enormous impact in that 
community.
    Senator Warnock. And the irony is that this interstate that 
we are talking about, 75/85 in Atlanta, is called, ironically, 
``the Connector,'' and it did exactly the opposite, separating 
these precious neighborhoods in Atlanta.
    Given this unfortunate history, what responsibility do you 
think that we as policymakers have today when making new 
physical infrastructure investments?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I think when you break 
something, you have a responsibility to put it right. And the 
reality is that Federal transportation policy broke something, 
broke a community in two in an important way. And that creates 
a responsibility for us today to use resources to create 
connections where there had been divisions.
    We know how to do it. At least in dialog with the community 
we can arrive at ways to do it. And it is one of the reasons 
why the Thriving Communities initiative that is envisioned in 
the President's American Jobs Plan creates real dollars to make 
that possible. This is clearly a responsibility of the same 
Federal Government that in some cases created these problems. 
But it is an opportunity not just to mend what was broken, but 
I think to lift up entire communities through the benefits that 
would come from them being better connected.
    Senator Warnock. And can you speak a little bit about some 
ways we can redress these inequities?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, I think it, of course, needs to 
be tailored to the specific community, and I would welcome an 
opportunity to speak with you more about some of the ideas that 
have emerged locally. Sometimes it has to do with reenvisioning 
where a highway or piece of infrastructure ought to go. Other 
times it is leaving it intact but finding ways to connect 
across, above, or beneath it. And, again, these are the kinds 
of things that in the Jobs Plan, which, for example, includes 
$5 billion to make sure that future projects help rather than 
harm on transportation equity and greater connectivity. These 
are the things we could be doing together, provided we had the 
resources to work with, and I would welcome the opportunity 
both to secure those resources and to put them to good use.
    Senator Warnock. Great. And you are absolutely right. I 
agree with you that the Federal Government has a responsibility 
to repair what it actually broken, and it is the reason I am an 
original cosponsor of the Reconnecting Communities Act. And I 
know you are coming to Atlanta tomorrow, so we will get a 
chance to see this highway, again, ironically called ``the 
Connector,'' with me and Senator Ossoff.
    Will you commit to working with me and my colleagues on 
this legislation to ensure that projects that seek to reconnect 
these communities in Georgia, like the more appropriately named 
``Midtown Connector'' and ``Project Stitch'' in Atlanta, as 
well as the reimagining of the I-16 off ramp in Savannah, my 
hometown, are realized?
    Secretary Buttigieg. Yes, I welcome a chance to work with 
you on this, and, again, this is in the spirit of a major 
Administration and departmental priority, and so I appreciate 
the work that has gone on and the leadership already to put 
together policies that would make a difference here.
    Senator Warnock. Great. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Chairman, I look forward to engaging Secretary Fudge. I 
wanted to talk to her about the social determinants of health, 
and I know it is something she is passionate about, and we will 
have time to talk about in the near future, I hope.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Warnock, and she 
absolutely is. We have all had those conversations with her. 
Thank you.
    Thanks to both of you. Secretary Fudge, thank you. Good to 
see you again. Secretary Buttigieg, you, too. Thanks for 
discussing why we need transformational coordinated investments 
in our housing and transportation infrastructure. These 
investments we know will create good American jobs and access 
to opportunity while helping communities become more equitable 
and affordable and resilient.
    I want to clarify one thing with a brief question, a last 
question to each of you. When people say ``labor costs,'' as 
you heard in this Committee, what they mean is American workers 
and fair wages. These jobs will be pay good wages and allow 
workers to live with dignity in their communities they are 
helping to build. They will spend those wages in their 
communities at local businesses. Labor costs are the way people 
make a living.
    I want to close by bringing our discussion back to those 
workers we serve and what this investment would mean in their 
lives. I know you both understand dignity of work and what this 
means. My question is more kind of an attitudinal, what sort of 
visceral response perhaps might work. When was the moment each 
of you--and I will start this time with you, Secretary 
Buttigieg. I started with Secretary Fudge more often in this. 
When was the moment you realized we needed a transformative 
infrastructure investment in this country? When did you first 
have that sort of vision and inspiration? For each of you.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Well, every mayor does battle with 
potholes, and I remember early in my time as mayor looking at 
the condition of our streets and roads, the work that needed to 
be done, and trying to do some mental math about what it would 
take to have a great road network in our city, and turning to 
my public works director and asking, ``With the funding we 
have, how long would it take for us to redo every lane mile of 
street in the city?'' And he let me know it would be on the 
order of 50 to 100 years. And I thought, ``Great. All I need is 
some kind of asphalt to be invented that in our snowy climate 
could survive more than 8 or 10 years.''
    That was just one example of many that showed to me what it 
would mean not just to have more funding for the things we had 
been doing all along like repaving roads, but more alternatives 
for how people can get around. I think all of us have had 
moments like that again and again, especially when traveling 
overseas and seeing the kinds of transportation infrastructure 
that citizens and other countries take for granted. I remember 
being a student in the U.K. on a train that they do not 
consider high speed, they just consider it regular speed, and 
realizing maybe for the first time in a visceral sense that we 
as Americans have come to settle for less. As somebody who 
believes in the idea of Americans having the best in the world 
at whatever we do--and that certainly ought to include 
transportation--that pricked my national pride a little bit and 
left me motivated to make sure that, whether we are talking 
about roads or rail or housing or energy or anything else, we 
have got the best in the world. And that is what I think the 
President's American Jobs Plan can allow us finally to do in 
our lifetime.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Fudge, when did it sort of jump into your mind 
the need for transformational investment in housing and 
infrastructure?
    Secretary Fudge. Really probably from the day I started to 
work. I realized how it would take me four buses to get to 
downtown Cleveland to go to work, and the only effective way to 
do it was by car. I would have to carpool with people because 
they did not have cars. And then we started in our infinite 
wisdom to build more and more roads into the exurbs, way beyond 
the suburbs, where people could not get to work. There was no 
transportation to get them there, so they had to have a car. 
And so you start to think about it maybe not in the way I think 
about it now, but I knew there was a problem then, and it has 
taken us an awful long time to get to this point to try to 
address it.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you. Excellent answers. Thank you 
both for being here.
    For Senators who wish to submit questions for the record, 
those questions are due by the close of business next Thursday, 
May 27th. For witnesses, please submit your responses to 
questions for the record 45 days from today.
    Thank you both very much for being here. Thank you both 
very much for your public service. Good to see you both.
    The Committee is adjourned. Best wishes.
    Secretary Fudge. Thank you.
    Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
    [Prepared statements and responses to written questions 
supplied for the record follow:]
              PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERROD BROWN
    We are honored today to welcome Secretary Marcia Fudge of the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development and Secretary Pete 
Buttigieg of the Department of Transportation.
    President Biden promised an Administration that reflects the 
country it serves, and we are lucky to have two Cabinet departments led 
by former mayors from the industrial heartland.
    Mayors know better than most how, for decades, an economy centered 
on Wall Street has left American cities, towns, and rural areas to fend 
for themselves.
    We've seen the damage: housing that poisons our kids with lead 
paint and mold. Homes bought up by rich outside investors and left 
empty to fall into disrepair. Roads and bridges that are falling apart. 
And neighborhoods and workers that are cut off from opportunity.
    Now, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rebuild our 
country's infrastructure.
    The investments we can make through HUD and DOT can bring down the 
cost of housing and transportation for workers and their families.
    These are the costs that matter to most people's lives--your rent, 
your mortgage, your utilities, your car payment, or your bus fare.
    And these investments will create jobs and grow local economies. 
When work has dignity, everyone can afford housing and afford to get to 
work.
    Over the past few months, this Committee has heard from leaders in 
housing and public transportation--not only experts in Washington, but 
local leaders who understand what communities really need to grow. They 
have illustrated how decades of underinvestment in our Nation's housing 
and transit have set us back.
    It's common sense--when we don't invest in the infrastructure that 
a modern economy requires, we lose out to our competitors. Communities 
stagnate or, in the memorable words of our colleague from Montana, dry 
up. Inequality gets worse, pollution harms families, and jobs and 
prosperity flow to only a small number of wealthy cities--or they move 
out of the country altogether.
    Rural communities have not gotten the investment they need to 
produce enough housing for local families, bridges are in poor 
condition, and public transit providers need continued help to serve 
the one million rural households who don't have a car--a number that is 
only growing as baby boomers age.
    And all of these problems are often at their most persistent in 
Black and Brown neighborhoods that have never had transformative 
Federal investment in their communities.
    As we discussed at our hearing on the legacy of redlining, we are 
still living in communities we built in the 20th Century, with the 
biases of the time.
    It's time to invest in creating the communities that will meet the 
needs of the country in the 21st Century. And this time, we cannot 
leave anyone behind. We will rebuild our communities to work for 
everyone.
    The American Jobs Plan is a bold effort to reverse decades of 
neglect, to rebuild, and to put in place the foundation for a 21st 
century economy, where people have the jobs and the economic security 
to raise a family, to choose the community they want to live in, to 
start a small business.
    It would produce, preserve, and retrofit over two million 
affordable homes, address the huge backlog of capital needs in public 
housing, and make our homes more energy efficient to bring down utility 
costs--all while creating job opportunities in the building trades and 
other sectors.
    The American Jobs Plan would construct new bus rapid transit lines 
in Columbus, Cincinnati, and other cities in all regions of the 
country. It would finally tackle the repair backlog in the transit 
industry that is now estimated to be more than $105 billion.
    President Biden and I also agree on the need to replace aging 
transit buses with zero-emissions vehicles made right here in America. 
The Jobs Plan would allow us to replace 50,000 buses.
    The Administration also recognizes the importance of ensuring that 
the investments in housing and transit work together, and of 
encouraging our communities to think about how they can help make it 
affordable for families to live there.
    We know when a business decides where to build a new manufacturing 
facility, or a young family is deciding whether to relocate for a new 
job, they don't only consider one factor--they think about how they'll 
get to work, how long will the commute be, will their whole paycheck 
get eaten up by rent or the mortgage, is there broadband at home, is 
there childcare nearby they can afford.
    All of these pieces fit together, and communities need all of them 
if they want to thrive.
    While much of today's conversation will focus on the housing and 
transit investments in our Committee's jurisdiction, we must tackle ALL 
of these critical investments.
    The Brent Spence Bridge over the Ohio River between Cincinnati and 
Northern Kentucky carries approximately 3 percent of our Nation's GDP, 
but the bridge is dangerously outdated.
    And Brent Spence is far from the only one--our Committee Members' 
States have thousands of large and small bridges in need of repair, and 
those bridges carry millions of cars and buses every day.
    I look forward to working with Secretary Buttigieg and my 
bipartisan partners in the Bridge Investment Act to make sure that 
Congress finally tackles overdue bridge projects.
    And we call this the American Jobs Plan for a reason--almost all of 
these are jobs cannot be shipped overseas--you can't repair an American 
railroad track or an American bridge from China.
    We're going to build new buses and rail cars and homes in America, 
with American raw materials and American union workers.
    The President called this a ``blue collar blueprint to rebuild 
America.'' He's right.
    We need bold action to rebuild our infrastructure, to protect our 
communities from climate disasters, and to put Americans to work in 
good-paying jobs.
    The former mayors here today know the pride people take in their 
neighborhoods and their hometowns. People want to see their communities 
thrive and grow, they want job opportunities for their kids, they want 
transportation and housing options they can afford.
    And local leaders, of both parties, are desperate for the resources 
and support to make those dreams a reality. For decades, they've 
watched Washington point to soaring stock prices as evidence the 
economy is doing well--but that Wall Street wealth never translated 
into investment in their own Main Streets.
    We are changing that approach, starting now.
    I look forward to working with our witnesses today to invest in the 
people and the places that make our country work. Welcome to Secretary 
Marcia Fudge and Secretary Pete Buttigieg.
                                 ______
                                 
            PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. TOOMEY
    Mr. Chairman, thank you. Secretary Fudge and Secretary Buttigieg, 
welcome to you both.
    The topic of today's hearing is an important one: infrastructure. A 
week ago I met with President Biden and a group of my Republican 
colleagues to discuss a potential bipartisan infrastructure package. 
Secretary Buttigieg was also there. It was a constructive meeting, and 
I'm encouraged by the President's willingness to negotiate.
    There are three features of an infrastructure package that should 
have broad, bipartisan support. First, it should responsibly boost 
support for real physical infrastructure. That's the platforms and 
systems we share and use to move people, goods, and services. That 
means things like roads, bridges, ports, airports, and transit.
    Second, a package cannot undo the 2017 tax reforms that helped 
create the best economy of my lifetime. Before COVID, we were 
experiencing an economic boom. We had the lowest unemployment rate in 
50 years, more jobs than people looking for work, a record low poverty 
rate, and wage growth across the board with wages growing fastest for 
the lowest income earners. That's the economy we should work to get 
back to.
    Third, we should not pay for an infrastructure package by borrowing 
billions of more dollars. The good news is we have hundreds of billions 
of unspent COVID funds that Congress can repurpose to pay for 
infrastructure. According to CBO, over $700 billion of the Democrats' 
March so-called COVID bill won't be spent until after 2021. In fact, 
the Biden administration itself has already begun repurposing unneeded 
COVID funds. HHS has diverted $1.7 billion meant for COVID to its 
unaccompanied minors program.
    What Congress shouldn't do is spend more taxpayer dollars to 
achieve liberal wish-lists that expand the welfare State. Take housing, 
for example.
    The Biden administration is proposing almost a quarter-of-a-
trillion dollars for housing in its infrastructure plan.
    Let's be clear: housing is housing. People certainly need housing, 
but housing is not infrastructure. The Administration now wants this 
new spending after Democrats in March spent $32 billion for housing. 
Democrats did that after Congress provided more than $80 billion for 
housing in response to COVID in 2020, which was on top of the $50 
billion we annually spend on HUD programs alone, the billions we spend 
on other housing programs, and the tens of billions more we forgo in 
tax revenues to subsidize housing.
    The same holds true for the Administration's transit proposal. The 
Biden administration wants to spend $85 billion for transit as part of 
an infrastructure bill. And the Administration is proposing this after 
Democrats in March spent $30 billion for transit.
    Democrats did that after Congress provided more than $40 billion 
for transit in response to COVID in 2020, which was on top of the $13 
billion we annually spend on transit. That's a total of $83 billion 
that Congress spent on transit over the course of one year. Amazingly, 
that number exceeds both the annual operating and capital costs of all 
the transit agencies in the U.S combined in 2019.
    Democrats tried to justify this spending by saying that transit 
systems would collapse from declines in ridership and State and local 
government revenues. But ridership did not drop to zero and has 
improved. And, on the whole, State and local tax collections set a new 
record in 2020. For example, California has a budget surplus of over 
$75 billion that it may use to send out ``free'' money to Californians. 
Plus, over the course of a year, we sent more than $850 billion to 
States and local governments for COVID relief.
    Some provisions in the Administration's so-called infrastructure 
plan are so unrelated to infrastructure, it's hard to read them with a 
straight face. For example, $400 billion for Medicaid caregiving 
services, $100 billion in consumer rebates to purchase electric 
vehicles, and $10 billion for a Civilian Climate Corps.
    In fact, overall, less than 6 percent of the Administration's $2.2 
trillion infrastructure plan goes to roads and bridges. This excessive 
Government spending is not sustainable and is contributing to inflation 
that will harm average Americans. Inflation is essentially an extra tax 
they must bear because goods and services will cost more.
    None of this should come as a surprise. Earlier this year President 
Obama's Treasury Secretary Larry Summers was warning us of the negative 
inflationary risks of excess spending. And that warning was regarding 
the Democrats' March $1.9 trillion spending bill. But Democrats ignored 
his warning. And now the Democrats are coming back to spend hundreds of 
billions more.
    Let me end where I began. In my view, it's possible for us to enact 
a bipartisan bill that responsibly boosts Federal support for real 
physical infrastructure. If all sides are willing to negotiate in good 
faith, an agreement can be struck. Let's focus on that, rather than 
efforts to increase wasteful Government spending that will harm 
Americans by contributing to inflation.
                                 ______
                                 
                 PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARCIA L. FUDGE
         Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development
                              May 20, 2021
    Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Toomey, and the distinguished 
Members of the Senate Banking Committee: thank you for this opportunity 
to discuss President Biden's American Jobs Plan.
    Today, as our Nation continues to rebuild from the COVID-19 
pandemic, we face a fundamental decision about our future.
    We can choose to take a bold new direction that will make the 
United States more prosperous, more equitable, and more resilient in 
the decades to come. A bold new direction that better positions us to 
win the global competition for the 21st century. That bold new 
direction is the American Jobs Plan.
    If we do not pass the American Jobs Plan, we will choose instead a 
very different path. We will return our Nation to the position we 
occupied before COVID-19. To an America beset by crumbling bridges, 
buildings, and homes. To an America unprepared to respond to the 
existential danger posed by climate change. To an America grappling 
with an affordable housing crisis that threatens the security and the 
basic dignity of families in every corner of our Nation.
    Even before the pandemic, nearly 11 million Americans spent more 
than half of their incomes on rent. COVID-19 has only made this 
situation worse.
    Our Nation's affordable housing crisis is especially severe among 
low-income households and communities of color. It keeps millions of 
Americans up at night, wondering if they will need to choose between 
paying for housing--or other essentials such as health care, groceries, 
or school supplies. Moreover, it limits their ability to save and 
invest in their family's future--from buying a home to starting a 
college fund for their children.
    Today's affordable housing crisis is due--in large part--to 
yesterday's lack of investment. Both the public and private sectors 
have failed to produce enough housing for our growing population and to 
maintain our existing stock of affordable housing. We are at risk of 
losing thousands of affordable homes, including many in public housing, 
that have fallen into disrepair and may threaten the safety of 
residents.
    The American Jobs Plan would reverse this trend and address our 
affordable housing crisis head on. The plan invests $213 billion to 
build and modernize more than two million affordable and sustainable 
places to live. It provides $75 billion in targeted tax credits, 
formula funding, grants, and rental assistance that can fill the gap 
between how much it costs to produce or preserve housing--and how much 
families are able to pay. In addition, it will allow HUD, the 
Department of Energy, and our partners across the Federal Government to 
fight climate change by making our homes more energy efficient--and 
better equipped to withstand extreme weather events.
    The American Jobs Plan addresses restrictive zoning regulations 
that artificially limit our Nation's supply of affordable housing. 
These constraints raise the price of housing--and increase 
transportation time and costs for workers who must commute longer 
distances from the areas where they can afford to live. To help solve 
these problems, the American Jobs Plan incentivizes local jurisdictions 
to take concrete steps to eliminate local regulations that restrict 
housing choices for people with low or moderate incomes.
    In addition to creating more housing, the American Jobs Plan 
preserves affordable housing that already exists. Nearly 2 million 
people--including more than 1 million Americans of color--currently 
live in public housing. Yet much of our public housing inventory is 
more than 50 years old and faces significant capital needs.
    That is why the American Jobs Plan contains $40 billion to 
rehabilitate and repair our public housing infrastructure. This funding 
would dramatically improve the quality of life for people who live in 
public housing. Furthermore, public housing is often located in under-
resourced communities that are especially vulnerable to the dire 
effects of climate change. Investments that help reduce energy use, 
increase resilience, or fortify against extreme weather events can help 
mitigate these risks.
    We know that stable, affordable housing can serve as a springboard 
for renters to achieve the dream of home ownership. To help more 
Americans realize that dream, the American Jobs Plan includes a new 
Federal tax credit based on the proposed Neighborhood Homes Investment 
Act. The new credit could lead to the construction and renovation of 
approximately 500,000 single-family homes during the next decade. This, 
in turn, can enable more families to become homeowners and build a 
source of wealth they can pass down to future generations.
    All told, the bold investments provided in The American Jobs Plan 
underscore a fundamental truth: that housing represents a vital part of 
our Nation's infrastructure.
    A secure and stable home represents more than four walls and a 
roof. It can connect us to better jobs, more affordable transportation 
options, and communities with cleaner air and cleaner water. It can 
connect our children with good schools--providing them with a pathway 
to earn a brighter future.
    Our homes are bedrock, brick and mortar institutions that lay the 
foundation for a stronger and more connected society--just like our 
roads, our highways, and our airports. To put it simply, our homes 
serve as a bridge to greater opportunities and a better life.
    If we want to ensure the United States remains the greatest Nation 
in the world during the 21st century, then we must first take care of 
home--in the most literal sense.
    That is why I am honored to testify today alongside Secretary 
Buttigieg. HUD and the Department of Transportation are committed to 
working with one another to help communities build more sustainable 
infrastructure--and expand access to both affordable housing and 
affordable options for transportation.
    The Biden-Harris administration understands that--in order to 
successfully enact the American Jobs Plan--we will need to deepen the 
partnership between our two agencies. HUD is committed to joining 
forces with the DOT to help ensure that the historic investments 
contained in the American Jobs Plan are delivered with efficiency and 
with equity.
    Together, we can help revitalize our Nation's infrastructure--and 
create communities that are more thriving, more resilient, and more 
interconnected than ever before.
    With that, on behalf of the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
                                 ______
                                 
                  PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETE BUTTIGIEG
                Secretary, Department of Transportation
                              May 20, 2021
    Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Toomey, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, 
and for your support of the Department of Transportation and our vital 
mission. I'm honored to be here with Secretary Fudge to discuss 
America's transportation and housing needs--particularly in this moment 
of great challenge and opportunity.
    We know that public transit has been hit hard by the pandemic. I 
want to thank you and your colleagues for passing the American Rescue 
Plan and other relief packages that provided a lifeline for public 
transit, the people who depend on it, and the essential transit workers 
who get people where they need to go.
    Public transit is key to building vibrant and interconnected 
communities, creating jobs, reducing pollution, combating climate 
change, advancing racial equity, and providing travel options for 
everyone. Too many families across the Nation are forced to choose 
between living impossibly far away from work so they can afford 
housing, or paying more for housing than they can afford in order to 
have a reasonable commute. This puts a toll on working families, who 
lose precious time with their loved ones and money needed for other 
essentials. Our lowest-income Americans are spending more on housing 
and transportation than they're taking in each month. Building transit 
and affordable housing alongside each other can be transformational for 
communities and families.
    That is why I'm so grateful to be sitting next to Secretary Fudge 
at this hearing.
    When people can move safely and easily in their community by public 
transit, foot, bike, wheelchair, or any other means, it can improve the 
lives of those who call that community home. That's why transit-
oriented development and public transit is such a priority for our 
Department and for me personally. We have already made $180 million 
available for cleaner transit buses. We allocated $187 million to help 
communities expand Bus Rapid Transit. We recently made $10 million 
available to help more local governments plan for transit-oriented 
development in their communities. I'm also pleased to announce that DOT 
will soon issue new guidance to help local communities and other 
prospective borrowers use the Department's transit-oriented development 
financing programs. And I'm thrilled that DOT is reinvigorating a 
partnership with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to 
identify ways to provide more affordable housing choices near high 
quality transit. We are looking for opportunities to work with 
additional agencies, including EPA and USDA, to make walking, biking, 
public transit, and other transportation options more available to 
disadvantaged and rural communities.
    These important steps will benefit communities across the country. 
But we must do far more. We face a $1 trillion backlog in needed 
repairs and improvements across our transportation infrastructure. The 
consequences of decades of disinvestment are felt in every State, and 
have fallen most heavily on low-income communities and communities of 
color, who are nearly four times more likely to commute by public 
transit.
    Our status quo is unsustainable--it's unfair and it's holding our 
people and economy back. And years of tinkering around the edges have 
not worked.
    That brings us to President Biden's American Jobs Plan. It is a 
once-in-a-generation opportunity to meet this moment.
    As we rebuild from the worst economic crisis in generations, this 
plan will provide the largest investment in American jobs since World 
War II, all with protections for existing labor standards. It will 
create millions of good-paying jobs, the majority of which will not 
require a college degree, for Americans to help expand and operate our 
public transit system, modernize our roads and bridges, and build the 
electric vehicles of the future.
    It will double Federal investment--$85 billion--for public transit, 
making it a more reliable, attractive, and accessible option to more 
people in more communities.
    It will help us tackle the climate crisis by making public transit 
the option of choice for more people, by building a network of 500,000 
electric vehicle chargers, and by replacing nearly 40 percent of the 
existing diesel transit vehicle fleet with electric vehicles. Chairman 
Brown, I thank you for your leadership on reducing fossil fuel 
emissions in the transportation sector, and for ensuring that the 
vehicles of the future are built by union workers here in the U.S.
    This plan would also be the largest investment in transportation 
equity in history. At least 40 percent of the benefits of the plan's 
climate investments will flow to overburdened and underserved 
communities. And the plan has $20 billion to reconnect neighborhoods 
cut off by past transportation decisions, as well as another $20 
billion to improve road safety for all users.
    I believe this is the best chance in our lifetime to modernize our 
infrastructure so Americans can thrive. This is our chance to provide 
current and future generations with the type of investment our 
forebears gave us in the New Deal--and this time, to include all 
Americans in the opportunities that come from that investment.
    I look forward to working with this Committee to deliver for the 
American people. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I 
will be happy to answer your questions.
        RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR TOOMEY
                      FROM MARCIA L. FUDGE

Q.1. The last time a Capital Needs Assessment of HUD's public 
housing was conducted was in 2010. Do you believe HUD should 
conduct another Capital Needs Assessment to accurately measure 
the current capital needs backlog for public housing?

A.1. HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research is 
currently exploring ways to estimate current capital needs 
using existing HUD data sources. The Department believes that 
the most cost- and time-efficient way to assess the portfolio's 
capital needs would be to gather data on capital needs at the 
property level much as it gathers data on the physical and 
financial condition of public housing at the property level. 
Just as HUD uses physical/financial assessment data to identify 
where there needs to be intervention, HUD would be able to use 
property-level capital needs data to work with PHAs to address 
urgent capital needs and to craft strategies/policies to 
efficiently address capital needs on an ongoing basis.
    Based on the 2010 assessment and the level of funding 
Congress has provided since, we are confident that the $40 
billion proposed by the President in the Build Back Better 
agenda is less than the total capital need but will leverage 
other private and public financing sources to bring sufficient 
resources to bear to transform the public housing stock for the 
21st century.

Q.2. How did you come to the conclusion in the Biden 
administration's infrastructure plan that you need $40 billion 
for capital repairs for public housing?

A.2. Based on HUD's experience with programs to rehabilitate 
and/or reposition Public Housing, HUD believes $40 billion is 
the amount necessary to leverage additional public and private 
funding to realize a holistic transformation in the nationwide 
stock of public housing.
    The modernization needs of the public housing stock extend 
beyond the backlog of replacing existing capital items and 
include the need to address concerns regarding the stock itself 
(climate resilience, energy inefficiency, environmental 
hazards, physical condition, functionality); the health, 
safety, and quality of life for resident families (including 
racial equity, geographic location, access for persons with 
disabilities, internet connectivity); and other risks to the 
properties' long-term physical, operational, and financial 
viability.
    HUD is confident that the overall annual financial capital 
need far exceeds annual Congressional appropriations for the 
public housing Capital Fund, typically significantly less than 
$3 billion, with continuously accruing capital needs too often 
rendering those annual appropriations necessary just to address 
deferred maintenance.

Q.3. Do you believe it would be useful for HUD to identify 
public housing developments where the cost of capital repairs 
exceeds the cost of conversion to tenant-based or project-based 
assistance? Please explain why or why not.

A.3. As noted above, the Department believes that it would be 
better for there to be property-level assessments of capital 
needs. One reason for obtaining specific property-level data 
would be to assess whether continued investments in a given 
property make sense based on a variety of factors, including 
the cost of transitioning from public housing to a Section 8 
assistance platform.
    We do not currently have the necessary project-specific 
data to make cost-test determinations under Required Conversion 
(Section 33) or Voluntary Conversion (Section 22); however, HUD 
continues to make Voluntary Conversion available to PHAs who 
wish to produce such project-specific data. To date, 1,039 
units have used Voluntary Conversion. Only 1,073 units have 
been required to convert under Required/Mandatory Conversion. 
To put this in context, a total of 110,000 units have been 
repositioned since FY2018.
    Legislative language included in enacted appropriations 
bills for several years has precluded HUD from requiring PHAs 
to conduct physical needs assessments. This means that HUD does 
not have information from PHAs on the physical needs of their 
properties. Therefore, we cannot assert the best way to 
revitalize specific properties. We do know overall that there 
are about 970,000 units of public housing and more than half of 
the housing stock is over 50 years old.
    It is important to note that determining the appropriate 
recapitalization strategy for these units is contextual and 
should be determined by local actors, specifically the PHA and 
the residents, working with local and State leadership and 
funders.

Q.4. Do you believe it would be useful for HUD to know the 
estimated capital needs backlog for developments administered 
by public housing agencies (PHAs) that HUD, the HUD Office of 
Inspector General (OIG), or the U.S. Department of Justice 
(DOJ) have alleged are grossly mismanaged, or those that have 
been identified by HUD as ``substandard'' or ``troubled?'' 
Please explain why or why not.

A.4. In order to identify specific properties where capital 
investment would make a difference, the Department would need 
to have property-specific estimates of capital needs, and we 
agree that it would be useful to know the estimated capital 
needs of developments at PHAs identified as facing particular 
challenges.
    Many PHAs that are in troubled or substandard status are in 
that situation due to the impact of funding volatility in the 
public housing program on their property's physical and 
financial condition. Currently, we have 71 troubled PHAs 
(23,219 units or 2.4 percent of all public housing units) and 
373 substandard PHAs (95,062 units or 9.8 percent of all public 
housing units). Combined, troubled and substandard PHAs manage 
12.2 percent of all public housing units.
    Funding for capital improvements could help transform the 
performance of these agencies. For example, many PHAs have seen 
improvement after successfully converting public housing 
properties under RAD, stabilizing funding and leveraging other 
funding sources to address capital needs. To date, 109 PHAs 
that were in troubled or substandard status when RAD first 
began have converted 22,898 units and generated nearly $1.8 
billion to re-invest in the public housing assets. Further, 
PHAs with limited development experience have been able to 
partner with high-capacity housing developers and managers to 
improve and maintain properties to the market standard.

Q.5. My Banking Committee staff asked HUD over a month ago for 
HUD's best estimate of the public housing capital needs 
backlog. However, HUD has still not provided that information 
and other related data.
    When will HUD provide my staff this information?

A.5. With, as noted above, only limited data available to HUD 
on this matter, we are working to develop our best estimates of 
the capital needs backlog for public housing, based on the 
variety of data sources available to us. We are working to 
cross-reference data from all the sources available to us to 
estimate the capital needs. Our CIR office has since provided a 
response to your office.
    But as noted above, those baseline figures will only take 
into account the backlog of replacing existing capital items. 
Despite not having sufficient funds to address the entire 
backlog of needs, PHAs continue to use their Capital Fund 
appropriations to address urgent capital needs annually. HUD 
considers the true need to provide a portfolio of quality 
affordable housing for all public housing residents to extend 
significantly beyond those basic backlogged replacement items, 
to include additional needs inherent in the portfolio itself 
(climate resilience, energy inefficiency, environmental 
hazards, physical condition, functionality); the health, 
safety, and quality of life for resident families (including 
racial equity, geographic location, access for persons with 
disabilities, internet connectivity); and other risks to the 
properties' long-term physical, operational, and financial 
viability. That is why HUD has confidence that the true need, 
which it will be able to meet through leverage, is well in 
excess of $40 billion.

Q.6. Do you think it is a good idea for Congress to spend $40 
billion without asking to review justifications for that 
amount?

A.6. HUD always commits to being good stewards of public 
funding, and we will set exacting criteria for Build Back 
Better funding to demonstrate measurable improvements in the 
quality of housing offered to public housing residents. It is 
clear that longstanding appropriations for the Capital Fund 
have fallen substantially short of the needs established in the 
2010 capital needs study. The $40 billion request represents 
the amount required to address estimates of the capital needs 
of the public housing inventory on the assumption that PHAs 
will be able to raise tens of billions of dollars in leveraged 
funds to transform the public housing portfolio.

Q.7. In 2020, HUD's OIG determined that for the last 11 years, 
HUD has failed to submit an annual report to Congress required 
by law on troubled PHAs. Will you transmit this report to 
Congress this year as required by law?

A.7. Yes, HUD is finalizing the FY2020 report and it will be 
submitted to Congress in the next 30-45 days. Attached is the 
previously submitted FY2019 report. (https://www.sigtarp.gov/
sites/sigtarp/files/Quarterly_Reports/
July_30_2019_Report_to_Congress.pdf)

Q.8. In implementing operating requirements for Emergency 
Housing Vouchers (EHVs) pursuant to the March 2021 Democrat 
stimulus bill, HUD has waived a regulation that prohibits PHAs 
from admitting anyone who has been previously evicted from 
federally assisted housing within the last 3 years for drug-
related criminal activity. \1\ Why have you decided to waive 
this regulation? Do you believe people previously evicted from 
federally assisted housing for engaging in drug-related 
criminal activity should be given an EHV instead of other 
noncriminals who have not been evicted?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ 24 CFR 982.553(a)(1)(i).

A.8. HUD recognizes decent and stable housing is essential for 
human survival and dignity and sought to ensure equitable 
access for the target population in the development of the EHV 
program. EHVs are specifically targeted to families who are 
experiencing homelessness; at risk of experiencing 
homelessness; fleeing, or attempting to flee, domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human 
trafficking; or were recently homeless and for whom providing 
rental assistance will prevent the family's homelessness or 
having high risk of housing instability. HUD provides federally 
subsidized housing to millions of low-income people who could 
not otherwise afford homes on their own; however, existing 
policies exclude numerous families who may have been previously 
evicted from federally assisted housing for drug-related 
criminal activity, condemning them to homelessness or transient 
living.
    As reflected in HUD's 2020 Annual Homeless Assessment 
Report (AHAR), African-Americans and indigenous people remained 
considerably overrepresented among the homeless population 
compared to the U.S. population. People identifying as Black or 
African-American accounted for 39 percent of all people 
experiencing homelessness in 2020 and 53 percent of people 
experiencing homelessness as members of families with children, 
despite being 12 percent of the U.S. population. In contrast, 
48 percent of all people experiencing homelessness were White 
compared with 74 percent of the U.S. population. People 
identifying as Hispanic or Latino (who can be of any race) 
represented 23 percent of the homeless population, but only 16 
percent of the population overall. HUD recognizes the need for 
communities to better understand and address the 
overrepresentation of people of color among those experiencing 
homelessness. Waiving the regulation to prohibit PHAs from 
admitting families who have been previously evicted from 
federally assisted housing within the last 3 years for drug-
related criminal activity aligns with the American Rescue 
Plan's goal of establishing equity as one of its central goals.
    The current Housing Choice Voucher regulatory requirements 
at 24 CFR 982.553 state a PHA must prohibit admission if a 
household member has been evicted from federally assisted 
housing for drug-related criminal activity. However, this 
prohibition is not absolute. A PHA may admit the household if 
they determine the subject member has successfully completed a 
drug rehabilitation program approved by the PHA or that the 
circumstances leading to the eviction no longer exist. The 
waiver of this regulation is the same policy that has been 
applied for many years to the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive 
Housing (HUD-VASH) program that serves veterans experiencing 
homelessness. Given the target populations of homeless, at-risk 
of homelessness, and survivors of domestic violence, dating 
violence, and human trafficking, individuals and families may 
include individuals struggling with drug addiction, and that 
addiction may be one of the root causes of their homelessness. 
HUD recognized the opportunity for safe housing provided to 
families through the EHV program as a critical first step in 
helping households recover from addiction. Consequently, PIH 
Notice 2021-15 advised Public Housing Agencies that 
prohibitions based on criminal activity for the eligible EHV 
populations regarding drug possession should be considered 
apart from criminal activity against persons (i.e., violent 
criminal activity).
    HUD is not prioritizing previously evicted families from 
federally assisted housing who have previously engaged in drug-
related criminal activity over any other eligible population to 
receive Emergency Housing Vouchers. The Department's goal is to 
ensure equitable access to vouchers for thousands of families 
who find themselves condemned to living on the streets, in 
overcrowded shelters, in squalid transient motels, or crowded 
into the homes of friends and relatives.

Q.9. As a justification for waiving requirements to collect and 
verify the immigration status of applicants for EHVs, HUD cited 
a concern that ``documentation may not be readily on hand and 
may be difficult to obtain for individuals and families 
experiencing homelessness.'' \2\ How are the circumstances of 
homeless families today unique such that they require waiving 
regulations that had not been waived before?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \2\ HUD, PIH Notice 2021-15, at 33 (May 5, 2021).

A.9. The Emergency Housing Voucher program was authorized and 
funded as part of the American Rescue Plan to help communities 
respond to the Nation's homelessness crisis, which has been 
severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. While developing 
PIH Notice 2021-15, HUD received reports from several 
communities that waiting times for vital documents, such as 
identification, birth certificates, and social security cards 
increased during the pandemic, resulting in obstacles to 
quickly re-house people experiencing homelessness, including 
victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human 
trafficking. People experiencing homelessness have 
understandable difficulty retaining their possessions, 
including their identification and documents. Even under normal 
circumstances, it can take weeks to assist people experiencing 
homelessness with collecting the supporting documentation that 
is required to verify eligibility. Barriers, such as 
transportation, lack of supporting documentation, and lack of a 
permanent address, hinder processes to obtain vital documents. 
In response to this widespread concern among communities, one 
of the regulatory flexibilities that HUD made available to PHAs 
(and their Continuum of Care (CoCs) partners, who are 
responsible for referring applicants) for the emergency housing 
voucher program, was the option to have additional time to 
collect documentation to verify recipient eligibility, 
including SSN, proof of eligible immigration status, date of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
birth, and disability status.

Q.10. The law governing noncitizen eligibility for EHVs permits 
lawful residents meeting certain criteria and provides for no 
exceptions. \3\ A related law prohibiting aliens from being 
eligible for other housing programs (unless they are qualified 
aliens) does provide exceptions for certain short-term shelter 
programs when assistance is not conditioned on income, \4\ but 
the amount of assistance through the EHV program is conditioned 
on the applicant's income and the program is not short-term. 
Why do you believe your justification for the waiver--that 
homeless people have difficulty obtaining documentation--is 
acceptable given that Congress considered permitting assistance 
to unlawful aliens only for certain homeless assistance 
programs that substantively differ from the EHV program?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \3\ 42 U.S.C. 1436a.
     \4\ 8 U.S.C. 1611(b).

A.10. HUD has made clear that PHAs are responsible for ensuring 
all voucher recipients meet the eligibility requirements for 
the program. This includes ensuring voucher recipients are U.S. 
citizens or non-citizens with an eligible immigration status. 
PHAs that choose to take up this option for regulatory 
flexibility are still required to collect documentation 
verifying eligible status within 180 days of admission to the 
program. These alternative requirements do not waive the 
verification of eligibility or the collection of supporting 
documentation; they simply provide PHAs with flexibility and 
additional time to collect such documentation as may be 
required in order to prevent delays in addressing the urgent 
housing needs of vulnerable families.
    There are several additional safeguards in place. First, 
the Notice is explicit that ``The adoption of this waiver does 
not authorize any ineligible family to receive assistance under 
these programs. If a PHA determines that an ineligible family 
received assistance, the PHA must take steps to terminate that 
family from the program.'' Second, with respect to evidence of 
eligible immigration status for noncitizens claiming 
eligibility for assistance, for PHAs that take advantage of the 
waiver option, applicants must sign a declaration of eligible 
immigration status and then within 180 days of admissions such 
individuals must submit supporting documentation to the PHAs. 
Examples of supporting documentation are detailed in Exhibit 1 
of the HCV Program Guidebook titled ``Eligibility Determination 
and Denial of Assistance''. Third, referrals for these vouchers 
will be made through local Continuums of Care's coordinated 
entry systems. In these systems, homeless shelters and homeless 
outreach provider organizations will be referring individuals 
and families with whom a relationship has already been 
established.

Q.11. GAO recently reported that HUD has not conducted a 
comprehensive fraud risk assessment of the Community 
Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program and 
that its current fraud risk approach does not involve relevant 
stakeholders, such as grantees. \5\ In response to these 
findings, however, HUD did not specify whether it agreed or 
disagreed with the GAO's recommendations. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \5\ GAO, GAO-21-177 ``HUD Should Take Additional Action To Assess 
Community Development Block Grant Fraud Risks'' (May 5, 2021), https://
www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-177.pdf.
     \6\ Id. at 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Do you agree with these GAO's recommendations?

A.11. HUD recently sent its response to the GAO report. In that 
letter (hereby submitted to the record), we provide information 
about actions that we are already taking to assess risk and 
commit to specific actions to address the GAO recommendations. 
(https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-177.pdf)

Q.12. If yes, how will you implement them? If not, why not?

A.12. Our letter provides examples of actions we have already 
taken to strengthen existing fraud-related controls and commits 
to the implementation of additional specific responsive 
measures.

Q.13. In HUD's official response to GAO's report on CDBG-DR, a 
HUD official stated that HUD ``views fraud risks in programs 
managed by grantees as fraud risk to the grantee . . . .'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \7\ Id. at 67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Do you agree? Please explain why or why not.

A.13. Yes. As we say in our letter, Congress has affirmed the 
block grant status of CDBG-DR funding. Consistent with the 
block grant framework of the Housing and Community Development 
Act, CDBG-DR grantees are responsible for the design and 
implementation of programs that respond to their specific 
recovery needs. HUD's role is to make a determination that 
grantee programs are operated in compliance with CDBG-DR 
requirements, based on HUD's review of a grantee's Action 
Plans, Action Plan Amendments, Quarterly Performance Reports, 
voucher submissions to support grant payments, and through on-
going monitoring and technical assistance engagements with 
grantees. Our response to GAO provides examples of the risk 
management tools and controls the Department has deployed that 
are designed to protect the Department's assets and enhance 
grantee capacity to detect and prevent fraud. Ultimately, if a 
grantee does not comply with antifraud or CDBG-DR requirements, 
HUD has authority to enforce against the grantees, including 
seeking repayment from non-Federal sources for any misuse of 
funds. In this way, the fraud risks are borne by the grantee. 
While the Department views fraud risks in programs managed by 
grantees as fraud risk to the grantee, HUD has agreed to 
investigate additional measures to mitigate risk and prevent 
fraud, waste, and abuse in the disbursement of CDBG-DR funds.

Q.14. Do you think it is inappropriate or imprudent to involve 
relevant stakeholders responsible for the design and 
implementation of the CDBG-DR's fraud controls as part of HUD's 
fraud risk assessment process?

A.14. HUD believes it is prudent to involve grantees in the 
process and outlines a set of techniques to involve grantees in 
its letter to GAO, which is attached to these QFR responses.
                                ------                                


        RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR WARREN
                      FROM MARCIA L. FUDGE

Q.1. Currently more than 75 percent of foreclosed FHA 
properties are sold to third parties prior to conveyance into 
the HUD REO portfolio through the FHA Claims Without Conveyance 
of Title (CWCOT) program. Because properties that flow through 
CWCOT never enter HUD's REO portfolio, they aren't subject to 
home ownership and nonprofit acquisition opportunities provided 
through HUD's REO program, including the 15-day ``first look'' 
period of priority for homeowners, nonprofits, and Government 
agencies. The properties are also often sold through private 
auction websites that are not accessible to the average family. 
Does HUD have any plans to review the CWCOT program, including 
whether new guidelines may be necessary?

A.1. HUD is proactively reviewing its property disposition 
paths and foreclosure prevention tools. The current volume of 
real estate owned (REO) portfolio is very low given the ongoing 
COVID-19 related foreclosure moratorium, entering its 16th 
month. The CWCOT program has historically been effective in 
reducing the timelines on foreclosed properties, in an effort 
to reduce neighborhood blight and the other negative effects 
that vacant REO property can cause in neighborhoods. CWCOT 
makes up roughly 50 percent of all property disposition 
activities that took place in 2020. One of the key goals in our 
efforts to get properties back into the hands of homeowner 
occupants or mission-oriented non-profits is to improve and 
expand the Good Neighbor Next Door program, which sells REO 
properties at a discount for sale to public service workers 
like teachers, firefighters, paramedics, and police, 
encouraging them live in the communities where they work. The 
Presidents FY22 budget includes funding for enhancements to 
this program. We continue to review our loss mitigation 
policies, including CWCOT execution and other disposition 
policies to ensure an equitable recovery for those families who 
are behind due to COVID-19 related hardships. HUD looks forward 
to working with your office on options that can benefit 
homeowners and communities.
                                ------                                


               RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF
            SENATOR VAN HOLLEN FROM MARCIA L. FUDGE

Q.1. The last update to HUD's C-PACE guidance was in January 
2017, and many stakeholders have expressed concern with the 
inability to leverage private C-PACE capital into new 
construction and preexisting multifamily buildings to maximize 
project energy/water sustainability based on the 2017 guidance. 
To support the Administration's climate priorities, is HUD 
working on updating its C-PACE guidance for its multifamily 
programs so that it can be more efficiently used by 
participants while continuing to protect tenants?

A.1. The Multifamily guidance on combining PACE Financing with 
HUD/FHA properties has been in effect since 2017 and to the 
best of HUD's knowledge, it has not received significant 
concerns about implementation barriers posed by the guidance 
from Multifamily lenders, borrowers, and local governments. In 
fact, many local governments have received approval for their 
Multifamily PACE program from HUD. HUD's assessment is that 
limited interest in PACE is affected by the many other ways to 
finance energy efficiency and sustainability property 
improvements, including FHA mortgage financing. HUD always 
welcomes suggestions on how to improve our guidance, and 
encourages stakeholders to contact their respective Multifamily 
field offices with specific concerns regarding implementation 
of the guidance.
                                ------                                


        RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR TOOMEY
                      FROM PETE BUTTIGIEG

Q.1. Transit System State of Good Repair--In your testimony, 
you highlighted the need to address the maintenance backlog 
across the Nation's transportation infrastructure. The Federal 
Transit Administration (FTA) currently issues project 
justification warrants that automatically give certain Capital 
Investment Grant projects a satisfactory rating if certain 
requirements are met, including verification that a system is 
in a state of good repair. However, this requirement is limited 
to certain projects and only a fraction of the projects in the 
Capital investment Grant pipeline have qualified for and 
received these warrants. Do you believe that a transit agency 
should have to demonstrate progress toward bringing its system 
into a state of good repair when looking to expand its system?

A.1. FTA estimates that the transit state of good repair 
backlog exceeds $105 billion, and there are more than $20 
billion of expansion projects in the Capital Investment Grants 
program project pipeline. We look forward to utilizing the 
increased funding provided by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
to help address this backlog and these critical expansion 
projects. Each transit system across the United States faces a 
unique array of challenges and opportunities. A singular 
standard for demonstrating progress toward achieving a state of 
good repair could easily be overly punitive to systems most 
requiring Federal assistance. In addition, during the COVID-19 
pandemic, agencies across the Nation have faced unprecedented 
operational challenges. Finding agencies that did not defer 
some maintenance while maintaining safety as the lowest cost 
option for remaining operational would likely be very 
difficult; however, we will continue working with transit 
agencies to address their maintenance backlogs.

Q.2. Natural Gas Eligibility in FTA's Low or No Emission 
Vehicle Program--The FTA administers the Low or No Emission 
Vehicle (Low-No) Program. Natural gas buses are eligible for 
the program, but virtually all of the projects that have been 
selected for the program are zero-emission electric buses. 
According to data from the California Air Resources Board, 
buses fueled by compressed natural gas (CNG) can reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent compared to diesel 
buses. In 2014, while you were Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, 
the city's transit authority began replacing a large portion of 
its transit bus fleet with CNG buses. Over the course of the 
next several years, South Bend won awards for greenhouse gas 
reductions in its vehicle fleet. Can you explain why, despite 
being eligible, natural gas bus projects have not received 
awards under the FTA's Low-No Emission Vehicle Program?

A.2. The Low or No Emission Vehicle competitive program 
provides funding to State and local governmental authorities 
for the purchase or lease of zero-emission and low-emission 
transit buses as well as the acquisition, construction, and 
leasing of required supporting facilities. FTA has awarded $409 
million for these types of projects since the program began in 
2016.
    FTA implements the program in accordance with the 
authorizing statute, 49 U.S.C. 5339(c). The statute requires 
that FTA ``shall only consider eligible projects relating to 
the acquisition or leasing of low or no emission buses or bus 
facilities that . . . make greater reductions in energy 
consumption and harmful emissions, including direct carbon 
emissions, than comparable standard buses or other low or no 
emission buses.'' FTA applies this statutory requirement to all 
applications for eligible projects it receives pursuant to the 
Notice of Funding Opportunity.
    Beyond the Low or No Emission Vehicle program, the 
Department has also awarded funds for compressed natural gas 
(CNG) vehicle purchases under the Buses and Bus Facilities 
competitive program. In addition, both CNG and zero-emission 
electric buses are eligible under the Buses and Bus Facilities 
formula program, and transit agencies can opt to use that 
formula funding to purchase either vehicle type.

Q.3. Transit System Expansion--The Biden administration's 
American Jobs Plan calls on Congress to spend an extra $25 
billion for transit system expansion. However, transit 
ridership has steadily declined since 2014, with the exception 
of a slight bump in 2019. Ridership fell off a cliff as a 
result of the COVID-19 pandemic and may never return to 
prepandemic levels, according to Moody's Analytics. Why 
shouldn't we wait to see if transit ridership rebounds before 
spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars more on transit 
expansion projects?

A.3. The funding that Congress has provided to public transit 
agencies has been essential, to maintain service to the 
American people during the COVID-19 pandemic. Over the past 
several months, transit ridership has been increasing, but it 
will be a while before we recover to prepandemic levels. I am 
committed to helping expand transportation options, not just 
return to the way things were before the pandemic.
    While the pandemic saw transit ridership drop 
significantly, bus ridership, especially in neighborhoods where 
essential workers live, remained relatively stable, 
highlighting the importance of this full range of public 
transit for essential workers and those who rely on it to 
access health care, groceries, and more. While the changes of 
travel patterns as a result of the COVID pandemic may develop 
over a series of years, the need to improve access and quality 
of transportation options has only grown. FTA estimates that 
the transit state of good repair backlog exceeds $105 billion 
and there are more than $20 billion of expansion projects in 
the project pipeline. This is why the Administration is looking 
forward to working with Congress to implement the historic 
investment in public transit made possible by the recently 
enacted Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
                                ------                                


               RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF
            SENATOR CORTEZ MASTO FROM PETE BUTTIGIEG

Q.1. Washoe County, NV Issue on CIG Cost Savings--Secretary 
Buttigieg, I wanted to share the transcript of the conversation 
I had with FTA Acting Administrator Fernandez that I mentioned 
during your appearance at the Banking Committee hearing:

        CORTEZ MASTO: Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you to the 
        Ranking Member as well. Ms. Fernandez, In 2018, the 
        Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County 
        completed their Fourth Street Prater Way Bus Rapid 
        Transit Project ahead of schedule and under budget. And 
        then in March of this year, they also completed the 
        Virginia Street Bus Rapid Transit Extension Project 
        early and under budget.

        My colleagues and I from Nevada have written to you, 
        urging the approval of RTC's request to utilize its 
        project cost savings to further enhance these two 
        projects for bus enhancements at the downtown Reno 4th 
        Street station and additional bus lanes and accessible 
        sidewalks in the Virginia Street Project corridor.

        Can you please speak to your position on allowing local 
        agencies like the Regional Transportation Commission in 
        Northern Nevada to utilize their left over funding on 
        other aspects of their projects?

        FERNANDEZ: Senator, it's always great news when 
        projects are delivered within the agreed schedule and 
        under budget, and I will take this opportunity to 
        applaud the successful completion of the two Reno bus 
        rapid transit projects. I know that they have already 
        retained their share of the cost savings, and if 
        confirmed, I will commit to carefully considering such 
        requests from the project sponsors.

        CORTEZ MASTO: Wonderful. That's great news. Thank you. 
        And I hope you consider them in a favorable way that 
        benefits continued improvements in northern Nevada.

    And this is not only an issue for Nevada, but other 
projects in the county. I would like to request a timeline from 
you on the when we will expect to see a favorable resolution to 
this matter that should reward project sponsors who are good 
stewards of taxpayer dollars by coming in on-time and 
underbudget with the ability to repurpose funds to other 
important elements of an existing federally funded project. Can 
you please have your staff communicate that information, as 
well the context for what is going into this decision making 
process, within the next month?

A.1. On June 1, FTA informed the Regional Transportation 
Commission of Washoe County (RTC) that it would be permitted to 
retain a portion of FTA's share of cost savings from the 4th 
Street/Prater Way Bus Rapid Transit project and the Virginia 
Street Bus Rapid Transit project.
    The RTC should be commended for successfully completing the 
two Reno bus rapid transit projects on-time and under budget.

Q.2. Smart Communities and The Moving FIRST Act (w/ Sens. Burr, 
Sinema, Portman), S. 652--Secretary Buttigieg, as I mentioned 
at the hearing, I have been working for 4 years now on my 
bipartisan Moving FIRST Act to bring back and expand the Obama-
era Smart Cities Challenge. I appreciate your familiarity with 
that previous program.
    My bipartisan cosponsors and I agree with much of what you 
said in regards to the value of these competitive opportunities 
for our communities of all sizes. That is why we have so much 
specific support for this legislation, including:

  1.  National League of Cities

  2.  National Association of Counties (NACO)

  3.  Transportation for America

  4.  American Society of Civil Engineers

  5.  U.S. Chamber Technology Engagement Center (C-TEC)

  6.  ITS America

  7.  Association of Global Automakers

  8.  Honda North America, Inc.

  9.  American Trucking Associations

  10.  Lyft

  11.  Uber

  12.  Railroad Passengers Association

  13.  League of American Bicyclists

  14.  Intelligent Transportation Society of America

  15.  Smart City Council

  16.  Venture Smarter

  17.  Smart Regions Initiatives

  18.  Center for Data Innovation

  19.  Waycare

  20.  Wi-fiber

  21.  Panasonic Corporation of North America

  22.  GPS Innovation Alliance (GPSIA)

  23.  Qualcomm

  24.  CompTIA

  25.  Security Industry Association (SIA)

  26.  CTIA

  27.  Verizon

  28.  Sprint

  29.  Geotab

  30.  Hotwire Communications

  31.  Small UAV Coalition

  32.  Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE)

  33.  The Electrification Coalition

  34.  Nevada League of Cities

  35.  Nevada Association of Counties

  36.  Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada

  37.  Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe Co.

  38.  Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce

  39.  Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce

  40.  Nevada Trucking Association

  41.  Switch

  42.  Tahoe Transportation District

  43.  Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA)

  44.  Tahoe Prosperity Center

    Can I get your commitment to support this bipartisan effort 
to bring back a very popular program in red and blue States, 
and to help us utilize and expand intelligent transportation 
solutions to address locally appropriate challenges?

A.2. The Department understands the importance of utilizing and 
expanding innovative transportation solutions across the Nation 
and looks forward to working with Congress on approaches to 
deploy these innovations to improve safety and efficiency. The 
Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation 
(SMART) Grant Program authorized in the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law provides funding for demonstration projects 
focused on advanced smart city or community technologies and 
systems in a variety of communities to improve transportation 
efficiency and safety. The SMART grant program builds on the 
success of DOT's Smart City Challenge and prior DOT pilot 
programs.

Q.3. The TRAVEL Act, S. 1516 and COVID's Impact on Nevada's 
Travel and Tourism Sector--Secretary Buttigieg, I have been 
working with the U.S. Travel Association and their members, 
including the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, to 
develop legislation titled the TRAVEL Act that would position 
regions with increased tourism with greater significance and 
consideration when it comes to Federal transportation 
investments by the USDOT. This legislation is directly in line 
with what is described and laid out in the Department's 
National Travel and Tourism Infrastructure Strategic Plan 
FY2020-2024. We need to get ahead of the transportation needs 
of this vital economic driver to so many places in America--
whether it's rural, urban, suburban, or tribal. My legislation 
calls for leveling the playing field for the needed projects 
that aid in efficiently moving our tourists, as well as the 
workers who help them enjoy their travels. With that, it 
creates the Office of Travel and Tourism to help the department 
maintain a focus on the needs of these important communities. I 
am eager for you to visit Nevada so I can show you the impact 
that helping alleviate congestion around Lake Tahoe or on I-15 
corridor between California and Nevada would make, or the 
impact that investments in the future Interstate 11 from 
Arizona through Nevada will make to our region. As you well 
know, COVID-19 has been debilitating for the travel and tourism 
industry. But making the smart investments so that this sector 
can return stronger and be more resilient in the future is the 
opportunity in front of us now.
    Can you please provide me an update on how the department 
is assisting communities like mine that have been devastated 
the inability to maintain the strength of our tourism industry 
in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic?

A.3. The travel and tourism industry was devastated nationwide 
by the COVID-19 pandemic, and DOT has worked in partnership 
with many stakeholders to address these concerns, within the 
scope of our authority. The Department helped Americans get 
back to work, travel, and everyday activities as safely as 
possible. Through supplemental funding appropriated to help 
mitigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, DOT has kept the 
Nation and Nevada moving. Additionally, supplemental COVID 
funding has allowed Amtrak to continue operating the California 
Zephyr route, which services Elko, Winnemucca, and Reno.

Q.4. Second, can you commit to working with the CDC, HHS, the 
State Department and others in the Administration to ensure we 
review the preparations that were taken, and response that was 
employed in the past year-and-a-half, to make sure that we are 
better informed to address and mitigate the impacts of health 
events like this in the future?

A.4. Yes, the Department is focused on learning from actions 
taken throughout the pandemic and will continue to work with 
interagency partners to incorporate lessons learned into our 
plans for future emergencies. DOT is also interested in 
identifying best practices initiated during the pandemic that 
could be replicated and expanded to improve the safety of all 
Americans.

Q.5. And lastly, can I get a commitment from you to have your 
department and individual modes review my TRAVEL Act and work 
directly with me on how we can address the needs of the 
transportation networks that move tourists in order to 
enhancing our economic recovery for tourism, protect our 
environment, and provide jobs in many places so hurt over the 
past year-plus?

A.5. Yes. I commit to the Department reviewing your bill and 
look forward to continued work with you and your colleagues to 
implement the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
                                ------                                


       RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR KENNEDY
                      FROM PETE BUTTIGIEG

Q.1. The near-airport parking industry serves and, in most 
cases, directly competes with airports for parking customers. 
While many of the pandemic relief efforts provided direct, 
large appropriations to the Nation's airports during this 
significant and unprecedented downturn in travel, airports are 
demanding near-airport parking operators continue to pay access 
and permitting fees without relief, increasing upcoming fees in 
more than a few cases, and also requiring operators to remit 
portions of revenues earned by operators on non-airport land 
utilization. These airport demands and a lack of flexibility 
accompany the lack of access many national operators have had 
to any COVID relief funding during a year of struggle at the 
height of which, near airport parking revenues fell 95 percent. 
In years past, operator access fees paid by the industry to 
airports amounted to upwards of $25 million annually. These are 
real and desperately needed dollars for an industry in 
financial disarray having already lost more than $1 billion in 
revenues over the course of the pandemic.
    The Coronavirus Economic Relief for Transportation Services 
(CERTS) program was created as part of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2021. The program, administered by the 
Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the Secretary of 
Transportation, can create a viable path for relief for the 
motorcoach, school bus, passenger vessel and other 
transportation providers. The near airport parking industry, 
itself regulated by the Department of Transportation and not 
unlike the motorcoach industry, has identified the program as 
another avenue for relief, but absent the Secretary's use of 
discretion and direct involvement, the industry's chances for 
long-term survival are slim.
    Coronavirus Econ. Relief for Transp. Serv. (CERTS)-Near-
Airport Parking Industry--The Consolidated Appropriations Act 
of 2021 included the Coronavirus Economic Relief for 
Transportation Services (CERTS) Act, a $2 billion relief 
program for transportation service providers including 
motorcoaches, passenger ferries, school bus operators, and 
``any other passenger transportation service company subject to 
regulation by the Department of Transportation as the 
(Treasury) Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of 
Transportation, determines to be appropriate.'' CERTS program 
guidance was released on May 6th, leaving out ``other'' 
passenger transportation providers entirely. For example, a DOT 
regulated provider running an off-airport courtesy shuttle or a 
35-passenger minibus would currently be excluded simply because 
their vehicles lack the right baggage compartment.
    Secretary Buttigieg, please describe the process DOT used 
to determine that no other transportation providers would be 
eligible for relief?

A.1. DOT understands the devastating impact that the COVID-19 
pandemic has had on the transportation sector. As directed by 
Congress, U.S. Department of Treasury is the lead Department 
responsible for CERTS program implementation. DOT provided 
technical assistance to Treasury in its development of the 
CERTS application guidance and eligibility criteria and also 
provided support to ensure that CERTS grant funding is 
distributed as promptly and responsibly as possible. At the 
outset, DOT stood up a team of senior career officials from 
OST, FMCSA, FTA, MARAD, and the U.S. Coast Guard to assist with 
industry stakeholder outreach and provide technical assistance 
to Treasury. For example, during the review process, FMCSA 
reviewed all 1,600+ motorcoach applications and conducted data 
checks to verify applicant eligibility. FMCSA also reviewed 
over 4,000 other records that had been blocked and quarantined 
by Treasury's system to verify none were falsely deemed 
ineligible. These collaborative efforts contributed to 
Treasury's successful implementation of CERTS.
    Treasury determined the scope of CERTS had to be limited to 
the four types of entities Congress specifically listed in the 
legislation and could not be expanded to other industries or 
types of transportation providers because program funding was 
significantly oversubscribed. Approved applicants in the four 
eligible industries received prorated grants representing less 
than 25 percent of their lost revenues.

Q.2. Would you commit to working with my office to revise the 
guidance, ensuring other DOT regulated transportation 
providers, who have been equally devastated, are able to access 
these funds as Congress intended before the Treasury grant 
portal opens?

A.2. Treasury has stated in its press release that the $2 
billion in available funding has been disbursed, and that the 
amount of documented revenue loss by applicants was in excess 
of $8 billion. Should Congress authorize additional CERTS 
funding, the USDOT stands ready to assist you and your 
colleagues in any future technical assistance requests.
    As directed by Congress, Treasury is the lead Department 
responsible for CERTS program implementation. Treasury reviewed 
the legislative language very carefully in initially 
determining eligibility and released related guidance on May 6, 
during which they invited questions from the public. They 
opened the CERTS application portal on June 19, and the 
application period closed on July 19. On August 13, Treasury 
began notifying and releasing grant agreements to approved 
applicants. Treasury made grant payments on a rolling basis as 
soon as the grantees signed the agreements. On October 8, 
Treasury sent the final payments to recipients of funding 
provided through the CERTS program. Over 1,400 motorcoach, 
school bus, passenger vessel and pilotage companies 
representing all 50 States received grants--93 percent of which 
are small businesses and more than 33 percent of which are 
minority-owned businesses. The CERTS grant recipients can be 
found on Treasury's website available here: https://
home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/assistance-for-
american-industry/coronavirus-economic-relief-for-
transportation-services/Coronavirus-Economic-Relief-for-
Transportation-Services-CERTS-Grant-Payments.

Q.3. Similarly, if you answer in the affirmative, please 
explain how you would work to open that avenue with the 
anticipated timeline and application process Treasury has 
already announced.

A.3. In October 2021, U.S. Department of the Treasury sent the 
final payments to recipients of funding provided through the 
CERTS program. Over 1,400 motorcoach, school bus, passenger 
vessel and pilotage companies representing all 50 States 
received grants--93 percent of which are small businesses and 
more than 33 percent of which are minority-owned businesses. 
DOT stands ready to assist you and your colleagues in any 
future technical assistance requests.

Q.4. Do you believe that entities that are required to register 
their vehicles for DOT licensing and follow the FMCSA rules and 
regulations are under the jurisdiction of the Department?

A.4. Being required to register for a USDOT number is not a 
measure of whether FMCSA has jurisdiction over the registered 
entity. Many States require vehicle operators to obtain USDOT 
numbers, for example, even if the operators are not subject to 
FMCSA jurisdiction.
    Regarding near-airport transportation, under 49 U.S.C. 
13506(a), ``Neither the Secretary [of Transportation] nor the 
[Surface Transportation] Board has jurisdiction [under 49 
U.S.C. chapters 135-149] over transportation of passengers by 
motor vehicle incidental to transportation by aircraft.''