    [Senate Hearing 117-550]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 117-550

                      IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE
        INVESTMENT AND JOBS ACT BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 2, 2022

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                     ______

    	              U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
      50-356PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2023

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                      THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont                 Virginia,
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island         Ranking Member
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    ALEX PADILLA, California             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
                                         DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
                                         JONI ERNST, Iowa
                                         LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

                 Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
                   Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 MARCH 2, 2022
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     1
    Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
      Virginia.......................................................     4

                                    WITNESS

    Buttigieg, Hon. Pete, Secretary, U.S. Department of
      Transportation.................................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................    10

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Preventive Maintenance Eligibility - Preservation - Federal
      Highway Administration, October 8, 2004........................    17
    Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended
      Approach, Federal Highway Administration.......................    19
    Memorandum on Guidance on Highway Preservation and Maintenance,
      Federal Highway Administration, February 25, 2016..............    29
    Section 150, Title 23, U.S. Code, National goals and performance
      management measures............................................    32
    Letter to Stephanie Pollack, Deputy Administrator, Federal
      Highway Administration, from the:
        American Association of State Highway and Transportation
          Officials, January 19, 2022................................    59
        Associated General Contractors, January 6, 2021..............    63
        American Highway Users Alliance, February 10, 2022...........    65
        National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, February 8, 2020..    71
        Portland Cement Association, February 14, 2022...............    74
        South Carolina Department of Transportation, January 12, 2022    78
        Texas Department of Transportation, February 11, 2022........    84
    Comments of the Transportation Departments of Idaho, Montana,
      North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming to the Federal Highway
      Administration, February 9, 2022...............................    90
    Letter to Senators Carper and Capito from the Advocates for
      Highway and Auto Safety, March 16, 2022........................    95
    Letter to Senators Carper and Capito from the Outdoor Recreation
      Roundtable, March 3, 2022......................................   110
    Statement of the National League of Cities, March 2, 2022........   112
    Letter to Secretary Buttigieg from:
        Senator Capito et. al, February 18, 2022.....................   122
        Senator Cramer et. al, February 18, 2022.....................   126
        Senator Joe Manchin III et. al, February 18, 2022............   129
    Letters to Senator Joe Manchin III et al. from Secretary
      Buttigieg, February 28, 2022...................................   132
    Republican statements............................................   141
    Climate Change 2022, Mitigation of Climate Change, Summary for
      Policymakers, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change........   143

      IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND JOBS ACT BY THE
                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2022

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
    room 106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Whitehouse,
    Merkley, Markey, Duckworth, Stabenow, Kelly, Padilla, Cramer,
    Lummis, Wicker, Sullivan, and Ernst.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Senator Carper. Good morning, everybody. I am happy to join
    Senator Capito and our colleagues and welcome everyone to our
    hearing this morning.
        I especially want to let the Secretary know how grateful we
    are that you worked us into your schedule. I know you have a
    lot of demands on your time. We are really pleased that you
    could be with us this morning for us to hear from you, and for
    you to hear from us, as well. We are grateful. Trying to do
    your job on the heels of an infrastructure package that is
    monumental and trying to raise a young family, you are a busy
    man. Welcome.
        Now to the topic of today's hearing, that is the
    implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,
    also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This law
    represents the single largest investment in our Nation's
    history with respect to our roads and bridges, I think, since
    the construction of the Interstate Highway System almost three-
    quarters of a century ago. This is a historic win for the
    American people in red States and blue States and throughout
    the United States.
        As we discuss this bipartisan success story, I think it is
    important to acknowledge the significant role that our
    Committee played in drafting this legislation. Last May, after
    months of hard work, our Committee unanimously reported out a
    surface transportation reauthorization bill by a vote of 20 to
    zero.
        Before that happened, some of you know that a new President
    just went into office and asked me to pull together a small
    group of Democrats and Republicans off this Committee to
    discuss the need for infrastructure legislation, roads,
    highways, bridges, as well as water, wastewater, flood control.
        It turned out that a week or so after that, Senator Capito,
    Senator Cardin, Senator Inhofe, and I joined the President, and
    you joined us remotely, Mr. Secretary. Kamala Harris, our Vice
    President, was there in person. And the President called for
    us, as a Committee that is known to work together on
    legislation, to actually try to enact bipartisan legislation
    that focused on infrastructure. That is what we set to work to
    do.
        Senator Inhofe is not here with us today. He is back home
    with his wife, Kay. We are thinking of them today. He is the
    longest serving current member of the Environment and Public
    Works Committee. I think he joined this Committee back in 1995,
    right in the middle of my first term as Governor. He served as
    our Chairman from 2003 to 2006, and was the Ranking Member from
    2007 to 2013. He is someone that we look to for leadership on
    these issues. We are sending our best to him and his wife, Kay,
    today.
        Now to the topic of today's hearing, Implementation of the
    Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. As we discuss this
    success story, I think it is important to acknowledge the
    significant role that our Committee played in drafting that
    legislation. We passed unanimously out of this Committee
    legislation on surface transportation. We did that, beating the
    deadline that the President set for us by a month or so. We
    reported it out unanimously 20 to zero, after we reported out
    unanimously, 20 to zero, water infrastructure legislation.
        Our bills went on to serve as the foundation for what would
    become a broader bipartisan infrastructure package. Senator
    Capito then became, before we had a gang of 20, or a gang of
    19, we had a gang of one. She and the President spent days
    together, weeks together, trying hard to hammer out a
    bipartisan compromise, which really laid the groundwork for
    what would actually become the legislation that we passed in
    the Senate, passed in the House, and the President signed into
    law.
        Senator Capito and I had the privilege of managing that
    historic package on the Senate floor. We stood together on the
    White House lawn that cold day in November when President Biden
    signed it into law. I thought it was so cool, we will just say,
    the President is here, he walks out of the White House, and he
    is standing at the podium to address about a thousand or so of
    us on the White House lawn.
        Three of us, Senator Capito, Senator Manchin, and I, three
    West Virginia kids, who ended up helping to craft the
    legislation and managed it on the floor were there with the
    President when he signed it into law. It was a very special
    day.
        As we drafted and negotiated the bill, I had several top
    priorities in mind. They included enhancing the sustainability
    and resilience of our transportation systems; improving safety,
    especially for pedestrians and bicyclists; as well as
    addressing the backlog of repairs for roads and bridges in poor
    condition throughout our Nation.
        That is why I am pleased to see this Administration
    encouraging States to use Federal highway funds to prioritize
    these same goals. Notice I said encourage; underline that.
    Encourage, not require. And as a recovering Governor, I never
    like for the Federal Government to require us to do a lot of
    stuff. But encouragement, we are always ready to listen to
    that. And that is an important distinction that we need to make
    today.
        To me, advancing these goals is common sense. And as it
    turns out, many States agree. The American Association of State
    Highways and Transportation Officials, whom Senator Capito and
    I addressed earlier today, declared that States very much share
    the Administration's priorities of addressing climate change,
    safety, and roadway maintenance.
        This should not come as a surprise. We know that the
    transportation sector accounts for the largest source of
    greenhouse emissions in our economy; something like 30 percent
    of carbon dioxide emissions are from cars, trucks, vans; about
    28 percent comes from our power plants. Another 25 percent or
    so comes from our manufacturing operations, cement plants,
    steel mills and that sort of thing.
        But meeting our shared climate goals also requires us to
    prioritize projects that reduce emissions and boost resilience.
    That is why we included the first ever climate title as part of
    the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. In addition to our $18
    billion climate title, we also secured $5 billion to build a
    national electric vehicle charging network, as well as funding
    to purchase electric transit in school buses, too. When we look
    at the need to address safety on our roads, that is pretty
    clear. And it provides a clear, yet alarming picture.
        The first 9 months of 2021, U.S. traffic deaths rose to the
    highest number since 2006, with fatalities of pedestrians and
    bicyclists at a 30 year high. Let me say that again, a 30 year
    high. To reverse this troubling trend, the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law makes significant investments in roadway
    safety, especially for our more vulnerable road users. Bike
    lanes and sidewalks not only benefit the safety of people who
    use them, but also are good for our health, our economy, and
    our planet. Encouraging agencies to build them is a win-win.
    And I applaud the Administration for emphasizing safety for all
    road users as part of its national roadway safety strategy.
        As a runner, I know our witness here today does a little
    running, as an old Navy guy, he stays in shape as a runner. As
    someone with a son who is going to be riding a bike from San
    Francisco to L.A. later this year to raise some money for a
    good cause, this is personally important, too, to our family.
        The third point I want to make is when we look at fixing
    what is broken, we get to what makes infrastructure personal
    for many families. Americans feel the impact of our crumbling
    roads and bridges every day when they commute to work or go to
    school. Most agree that we should encourage States to fix and
    maintain our roads and bridges that are in poor condition.
        The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law largely maintains the
    existing, this is an important point, the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law that we passed largely maintains the
    existing structure of State and local decisionmaking and the
    process for distributing highway funding by formula to States.
    However, the law also contains an unprecedented increase in
    funding for our Nation's surface transportation programs. The
    sheer size of this funding leaves no question in my mind that
    State and local agencies can both redouble their efforts to
    repair our roads, highways, and bridges, and begin to address
    safety, sustainability, resilience, and other local priorities.
        We have an opportunity, as I like to say, to walk and chew
    gum at the same time. Let's do both.
        In closing, before I turn to Senator Capito, let me just
    say I hope we can all take this opportunity today to celebrate
    our transformational bipartisan accomplishment. Too often,
    Americans see their elected leaders in Washington picking
    partisan battles that don't achieve potential results. But by
    enacting this once in a generation investment in our Nation's
    infrastructure, our roads, our highways, our bridges, our
    water, drinking water, wastewater, flood control, we have
    demonstrated that bipartisanship is not only possible, it is
    essential.
        This new law is already beginning to grow our economy,
    creating a ton of additional good paying jobs, and make a
    positive impact on a whole lot of lives. It is a major win for
    which all of us can be proud, and should be proud. I am, and I
    know that other members of this Committee are as well.
        That being said, implementation is critical.
        Mr. Secretary, as you know, the work ahead of us for you
    and your team is immense. We know that you are focused on
    ensuring that the American people experience the benefits of
    the new law as quickly as possible. We look forward to hearing
    your testimony today on the Department's critical work in
    putting this money to work for communities across our country.
        Before we do that, let me recognize our Ranking Member,
    Senator Capito, for her opening remarks. And again, I thank her
    and her team for being vital partners in getting this law
    enacted. Also, I thank her for showing the way and being,
    before there was a gang of 19, a gang of one.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us today. I
    think this is going to be a great hearing.
        I thank the Chairman for his ongoing commitment to
    bipartisan oversight of the implementation of the IIJA.
        I am proud to say, as he has said, that the foundation of
    the IIJA consists of two of our Committee's bipartisan
    products, which were unanimous coming out of this Committee,
    the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act of 2021, and the
    Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021. This
    historic legislation proved once again that we can come
    together to develop bills that tackle our Nation's pressing
    challenges in a manner that reflects input from both of our
    parties in a diverse stakeholder community.
        I will say in the week that I was home, last week, we were
    already starting to see the benefits and the excitement from
    counties and cities and regional areas who are going to be able
    to really make a difference in a lot of people's lives.
        I also want to thank you, Secretary Buttigieg, for joining
    us today, as well as the staff at the Department of
    Transportation for their tireless work to implement the IIJA,
    and also for their work in formulating many of these projects,
    the visions that are contained within.
        As we look at the status of the implementation, it is
    important to acknowledge that the Department is constrained in
    its efforts by operating under the current Continuing
    Resolution. Senators on this Committee, including myself, have
    urged our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee--I guess I
    am urging myself, because I am on that committee as well--to
    take action to ensure that the IIJA be fully implemented as
    quickly as possible. Hopefully next week we will have some
    resolution, whether through enactment of a final fiscal year
    2022 legislative appropriations, or providing anomalies so that
    the States can take advantage of the new levels of formula
    funding.
        Implementation is further compounded, I think, by the still
    vacant position of the administrator of the Federal Highway
    Administration, the FHWA. I have repeatedly said in this
    Committee that a Senate confirmed administrator is critical to
    ensuring timely and effective implementation, and would
    certainly help the Secretary as well. Chairman Carper and I
    sent a letter to the White House on this matter earlier this
    year. And I look to considering a qualified nomination for this
    position.
        As the Committee was developing the Surface Transportation
    Reauthorization Act, the Chairman outlined many of those
    provisions, I came to the table with several major policy and
    funding priorities. And I am proud to see that many of them are
    reflected in the final project. I would like to take a minute
    to highlight a few of my priorities.
        The IIJA provides significant funding levels, $303.5
    billion, out of the Highway Trust Fund over 5 years for Federal
    highway programs. Ninety percent of that funding is being
    distributed by formula, giving States the much needed certainty
    to plan and carry out projects to address their unique surface
    transportation needs. My home State of West Virginia will
    receive over $3 billion.
        This legislation also created a $2 billion Rural Surface
    Transportation Grant Program that includes dedicated resources
    for the Appalachian Development Highway System, the ADHS, and
    other critical projects across West Virginia. This dedicated
    funding is critical to completing the ADHS, in particular
    Corridor H in West Virginia, where I just visited last week,
    which will connect the eastern and central parts of our State
    with the Metro DC area and open up more opportunities for
    economic growth and tourism.
        The IIJA also includes numerous project delivery
    provisions, including environmental review and permitting
    reforms for highway and bridge projects. Notably, it codifies
    One Federal Decision which requires agencies to coordinate on a
    predictable, joint schedule, and sets a 2 year goal for
    completing the environmental review and permitting process for
    major projects, which we heard could take previously between 7
    to 10 years.
        The IIJA also includes a number of policy and funding wins
    for my colleagues across both the aisle and up and down the
    dais. All of these priorities were addressed in a bipartisan
    manner through thoughtful negotiation. Nobody got everything
    they wanted. Some priorities were considered and intentionally
    excluded over the course of the negotiations.
        On December 16th, the FHWA issued a memorandum to staff
    entitled Policy on Using Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
    Resources to Build a Better America, which I found troubling.
    The memorandum provides an overarching policy framework to
    guide the use of funding in the IIJA in a manner that reflects
    the policy priorities of the Biden administration. A number of
    these policies run contrary to the compromises that this
    Committee made when negotiating the Surface Transportation
    Reauthorization Act and seeing it through its enactment.
        Specifically, the memorandum seeks to restrict the
    flexibility of States and impose a one size fits all solution
    to address the surface transportation needs of all communities.
    It discourages States from moving forward with projects that
    add highway capacity, and instead prioritizes projects that
    improve existing surface transportation assets.
        The memorandum also, in my view, creates winners and losers
    among different types of projects based on their level of
    environmental review required by NEPA. It attempts to direct
    funding to assets not owned and operated by States' DOTs, and
    it focuses on projects that advance the Administration's
    priorities regardless of whether these projects meaningfully
    address the needs of a particular State or community.
        In response to this memorandum, I promptly met with Deputy
    Administrator Pollack to express my concerns, and I expressed
    them to you yesterday over the phone. Since then, numerous
    Senators on both sides of the aisle and the stakeholders have
    raised a similar alarm about this memorandum.
        Approximately 2 weeks ago, my colleagues and I, including
    every Republican on this Committee, sent the Secretary a letter
    requesting that this memorandum be rescinded or substantially
    revised to demonstrate that the FHWA intends to implement the
    IIJA as enacted. I look forward to hearing from the Secretary
    on these and other important matters.
        I yield back my time.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        I want to mention a couple of things about our Secretary
    today. I didn't realize that he is a Rhodes Scholar. I said to
    my staff, do you spell that R-O-A-D-S or R-H-O-D-E-S, or----
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. They said, it could be either one.
        I asked if he ever spent any time in uniform, and they
    said, in fact, he was in the Navy.
        As one Navy guy to another, thank you for that service.
        I spent some time in Southeast Asia during a big war. Our
    witness today spent some time in uniform in Afghanistan during
    the conflict there where we had a major presence.
        He has served as the mayor of South Bend, which is--how
    many people live in South Bend these days? A couple hundred
    thousand?
        Mr. Buttigieg. About 100,000, yes.
        Senator Carper. Jim Inhofe is not with us today, as I said
    earlier, he is a former mayor of Tulsa. We have people here who
    have been former Governors and mayors. So you ought to feel
    very much at home. We are delighted that you are our Secretary
    and very much appreciate the opportunity.
        The other thing about our witness today is he has
    surrounded himself with excellent people in his previous roles,
    but also here in his role as Secretary, because he stole about
    half my staff, Andrew, and I think a couple of them are here.
    We are going to keep them until we get everything we want from
    you and your department.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. I am just kidding. You got some really good
    people, and you know that.
        So with that, your testimony this morning will be made part
    of the record, and I thank you again for joining us. Mr.
    Secretary, please proceed.

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

        Mr. Buttigieg. Thank you very much, Chairman Carper,
    Ranking Member Capito, members of the Committee. I want to
    thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Department of
    Transportation's ongoing work to implement President Biden's
    historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
        I would like to begin by thanking you for everything you
    did to craft and to pass this urgently needed piece of
    legislation. It is a landmark that we believe will stand to the
    credit of this Congress and this Administration alike.
        As members of the Committee know well, America's
    infrastructure fell into a state of disrepair for decades. And
    the American people rightly demanded action. We had yet another
    blunt reminder of the urgency and need just last month in
    Pittsburgh, with the collapse of the Fern Hollow Bridge.
        As I have traveled across the country, I have seen supply
    chains straining, bridges out of service, and critical
    infrastructure destroyed by increasingly frequent climate
    disasters. The need for major investment has long been clear,
    and now, this President and this Congress have delivered the
    means to address that need.
        Through this law, we are now in the early stages of a
    generational modernization of our infrastructure that will
    serve to bolster our economic security and prosperity for
    decades to come. The investments now underway will strengthen
    our goods movement and supply chains, reduce costs for American
    consumers, make it easier and safer for people to get to where
    they need to be, help tackle the climate crisis, and create
    good paying jobs building bridges, paving roads, electrifying
    buses, installing EV chargers, laying track, and so much more.
        At DOT, we are working to implement these investments
    according to the new law, with a focus on making our Nation's
    roads safer; making our transportation systems cleaner, more
    accessible, and more resilient to climate impacts; and enabling
    all Americans to share in the benefits equitably.
        We began our work as soon as the President signed the new
    law. In the past 90 days, we have already put forward a total
    of $60 billion in authorized funding to States and communities,
    and we have opened applications for another $2 billion in
    discretionary grant programs.
        Our Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, announced the
    largest annual apportionment of highway funds in decades, more
    than $52 billion for States to repair and rebuild our roads,
    bridges, and highways, making them safer and more resilient.
        With regard to Federal aid highway funding, I want to pause
    and emphasize the importance of the relationship between our
    department and our State partners, because I know that has been
    of particular interest to members of this Committee. I want to
    make clear that we recognize and value the role of the States
    in deciding how to prioritize the use of formula dollars, as
    laid out in the law.
        Different States and communities have different needs when
    it comes to transportation assets that have to be reconfigured
    and modernized, expanded and added, or retired and replaced, as
    appropriate. And we look forward to our continued support of
    State transportation departments as they undertake this work.
        And I am proud to affirm the virtues of what so many
    States, from Alabama, to Virginia, to my home State of Indiana,
    and many more, have been doing to focus on repairing the vital
    infrastructure we already have. That philosophy is something we
    at DOT share with State leaders across the country, Republicans
    and Democrats alike, who are working to repair, maintain, and
    modernize the roads, bridges, and other transportation
    infrastructure that their residents count on every day.
        Maintaining and improving our existing infrastructure is
    critical to building a better, cleaner, more modern
    transportation system, and now we can bring new resources and
    energy to this work. FHWA recently launched our new Bridge
    Formula Program, the single largest dedicated bridge investment
    since the creation of the Interstate Highway System, with more
    than $26 billion to repair and replace our bridges, so we can
    avoid devastating collapses and closures like the one we saw
    recently.
        We have established a Joint Office of Energy and
    Transportation with the Department of Energy, followed by our
    announcement of $5 billion in support for States as they draw
    up plans to build out what will become a national network of EV
    chargers, half a million strong by 2030.
        We have opened applications for some of our most
    significant grant programs with more funding than ever, thanks
    to the infrastructure law, including our RAISE, Port
    Infrastructure Development Program, and Airport Terminal
    Program, with more soon to come.
        We are working closely with State Departments of
    Transportation and other project sponsors to ensure they have
    the flexibility and support they need to deploy all these funds
    in ways that make sense for their communities, while ensuring
    that the expenditure of these funds meets our shared public
    policy goals and the high standards for the use of Federal
    taxpayer dollars.
        All of us worked to enact the infrastructure law for the
    same reason: Because we know it will do so much to make life
    better for the American people. It will improve everyday life
    for the traveling public and anyone who counts on our supply
    chains. It will ease daily commutes and long haul travel alike,
    and it will create jobs.
        We at the DOT look forward to continuing our work with all
    of you to bring the ambitious vision of the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law to life across our country.
        I want to thank you again for inviting me to be here today.
    And I am looking forward to taking your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Buttigieg follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.002

        Senator Carper. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for that
    opening statement.
        I am going to start off with a couple of questions, then I
    will yield to Senator Capito.
        There has been some confusion, I think you addressed it in
    your opening statement, and I am delighted you have, but some
    confusion about a guidance document that the Federal Highway
    Administration issued a couple of months ago, maybe back in
    December. Just for clarification, does the memo tie the hands
    of States or prevent States from selecting projects to fund
    using their Federal highway formula dollars including adding
    highway capacity if they choose to do so?
        Mr. Buttigieg. No, it doesn't.
        Senator Carper. All right. And second, can you tell us any
    more about why the Department has encouraged States to consider
    prioritizing projects to address safety and to address road and
    bridge construction and emissions?
        Mr. Buttigieg. We view these as common sense and long
    standing policy goals, and goals that we share with so many of
    the State transportation leaders we speak to. So under the law,
    and as we seek to implement it, of course States decide what
    projects to build with their Federal formula funds. We believe
    that thoughtful road investments are vital to achieving those
    safety, equity, and climate goals.
        Notably, the American Association of State Highway
    Transportation Officials, AASHTO, which represents the State
    transportation departments, and which I know you have been in
    touch with even this week as they gather, wrote about how
    States very much share FHWA's policy priorities outlined in
    this guidance.
        States are making these investments not because of any
    ideological tilt one way or the other, but because they are
    often more affordable in the short term, more cost effective in
    the medium term, and yield better outcomes for travelers and
    for movement of goods and for communities in the long term.
        So what we are really seeking to do is work with States on
    the investments that are going to create the most bang for that
    Federal taxpayer buck while recognizing, of course, that
    context matters, and that what is appropriate in one community
    or State will be different than what is appropriate in another.
        Senator Carper. As Senator Capito knows, and some of our
    colleagues know as well, I ended up moving to Delaware when I
    got out of the Navy at the end of the Vietnam war, and had the
    opportunity to ultimately serve the people there in a lot of
    different ways.
        The foundation of my service to Delaware and really to the
    country came from a conversation that we had around our dinner
    table when my sister and I were just little kids. My mom and
    dad had gone to Shady Springs High School, which Senator Capito
    knows is just outside of Beckley, West Virginia. One night
    after supper, my dad said to my sister and me, we were very
    young, he said, your mom and I want you to go to college. And
    we said, well, we want to go to college, Dad. And he said, we
    want you to figure out how to pay for it.
        My father, who never went beyond high school, he was a
    World War II veteran, GI Bill, learned how to fix wrecked cars
    at Burleson Oldsmobile in Beckley, West Virginia. There were a
    couple of things he used to say to us a lot. You can probably
    remember things your parents said to you, and I am sure
    everyone on this Committee, guidelines for our lives.
        One of the other things my dad would say a lot to us is
    that my if sister and I would do some boneheaded stunt, my
    father would always say, just use some common sense. Just use
    some common sense. He didn't say it so nicely, but he said it a
    lot. We must not have had much. But that is some of the best
    advice I have ever gotten.
        I listened to your statement, and the response that you had
    to my first question. It reminds me of my father, and the use
    of common sense. And I am glad to see that you are following
    his advice, and I hope I still am as well.
        Next, I want to run to the roll out of climate formula
    programs. We know that the Continuing Resolution has had an
    impact on U.S. DOT's ability to move forward with some of the
    new programs created in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. My
    colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, some of them are
    here today, are hard at work, and I hope Congress will soon
    pass an omnibus appropriation bill to fund the Government for
    the rest of this fiscal year through the end of September.
        Once the appropriations bill is enacted, how quickly will
    the Department of Transportation be able to apportion the new
    carbon reduction and PROTECT formula programs and provide the
    guidance necessary for the States to start utilizing those
    funds?
        Mr. Buttigieg. Both of these programs are so important for
    not only the development toward our climate goals, but the
    protection of our infrastructure assets with regard to
    resilience imperatives. So we will get to work as soon as we
    are able to, thanks to that appropriation that we seek.
        We are doing everything that we can, of course, within the
    constraints that currently exist. But I appreciate you and the
    Ranking Member both mentioning the sense of urgency that we
    have about seeing that appropriation come through that will
    allow us to go full speed ahead.
        Senator Carper. OK. Time is wasting.
        Senator Capito, please.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        And Mr. Secretary, I appreciate many of the sentiments you
    have expressed today. But I want to go back to the memo. And I
    know that you and I have talked about it, and I heard your
    response to the Chairman.
        But we debated these policies in this Committee, we debated
    them with the House and the Senate, as each chamber developed
    its respective proposals to reauthorize these Federal surface
    transportation programs. These policies were ultimately
    rejected and not included in the final legislation sent to the
    President's desk.
        Let me give you a specific example, and I believe you have
    it there, because there is no way you could read it from there.
    House Chairman Peter DeFazio's Invest in America Act included
    language that restricted the ability of a State to carry out a
    project that added new capacity for single occupancy passenger
    vehicles. His language is shown on this one, over here, you can
    see it has some highlighted areas.
        The FHWA memo directs FHWA staff to encourage State
    departments of transportation and other entities to consider
    certain factors before advancing projects that result in new
    capacity for single occupancy vehicles. The language from this
    memo is shown in this other poster here. As you can see, this
    language from the memo is lifted from the bill that DeFazio had
    that was sent over here to the Senate as the shell bill that we
    rejected here in the U.S. Senate.
        The Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act, which
    passed this Committee, had no such language in there. I have
    said many times, this is a bipartisan bill, it is a product of
    careful negotiations that reflected the will of the Committee
    unanimously.
        You sent me a letter earlier in response to my bringing
    this to your attention. Your memorandum said that it is
    consistent with the Bipartisan Infrastructure language. I just
    don't think it is consistent, and I am really troubled that a
    memo coming from your department has language in it that was
    rejected from the House bill basically verbatim.
        What is your reaction to that?
        Mr. Buttigieg. I would say my understanding is what was
    rejected was the mandate with regard to these goals, not the
    idea of these goals. So as I look down the text, for example,
    the first one I see is, progress in achieving a state of good
    repair consistent with the State's asset management plan. Now,
    I cannot imagine that anyone here rejects that proposition that
    it is a good thing to have progress in achieving a state of
    good repair consistent with the State's asset management plan.
        What I do recognize is that there was a move in the House
    to say that unless you have shown that progress, you couldn't
    even go forward on some of that new construction. If that were
    to have prevailed, then of course, my department would be
    responsible for implementing that law.
        But that is not what the law says that you passed, of
    course. The law does not say that you have to prove that you
    have made that progress on a state of good repair in order to
    do anything else. But I would be perplexed by any suggestion
    that we should no longer believe that a state of good repair is
    a good thing.
        If I were to go to the next bullet, and I am just seeing
    this here, but I think it is the same that is on the board, and
    I appreciate your providing for me, because it is a bit of an
    eye chart from where I sit. It is a reference to how the
    project will support the achievement of the State's performance
    targets.
        Again, as I understand the progress of the bill, the Senate
    did not go forward with the requirement saying the State has to
    meet its performance targets in order to be allowed to do new
    construction. And so as we go forward implementing the law, we
    would not impose any such mandate. But of course, we still
    believe it is a good thing for a State to achieve its
    performance targets.
        If I go to the third one, it says whether the project is
    more cost effective than both operational improvements to the
    facility or corridor and transit projects eligible under
    Chapter 53, Title 49. So my understanding is, had the House
    bill passed, we would have been required under the law to
    certify that in some way in order to allow that funding to go
    forward.
        But of course, that is not what passed, as you point out.
    And so there is no such requirement. But of course, cost
    effectiveness continues to be something that we would consider
    to be important and would support States in achieving.
        To me, the difference is, of course, that mandate. My
    understanding, and our understanding as we go forward,
    implementing the law as written is it has no such mandate. That
    is why the memo says that there is no such requirement.
        Senator Capito. So from your explanation, what I assume,
    the fact that they are verbatim from the DeFazio bill into the
    memo that came from your department word for word is just
    because?
        Mr. Buttigieg. It is because they are good ideas. It is
    just that the law doesn't mandate them, so neither will we.
        Senator Capito. Are you in the habit of lifting language
    from unpassed bills and putting it into regulations that you
    are putting forward that obviously have been negotiated out of
    bills?
        Mr. Buttigieg. Again, our understanding was that what was
    negotiated out was not the idea of cost effectiveness, but the
    mandate. So as we seek to implement the bill as written, you
    will continue to see phrases like state of good repair that I
    trust have been on the lips of Secretaries, Republican and
    Democrat alike, and members of both parties in both chambers.
    But the law as written does not provide for us to require it,
    and so we won't.
        Senator Capito. Ok. So you referenced the letter from
    AASHTO, the State highway administrators, who also wrote you a
    letter expressing concerns, along with Governors, and many
    States. And in that you pick out a sentence that says that they
    very much share the policy priorities outlined in the guidance.
    But the four page letter is basically saying yes, these things
    are important, these things are things that we as States, the
    formula is different for Maryland than it is for me or Delaware
    or North Dakota. So let us keep the flexibility of moving
    forward on safety and repair. This is what State DOTs do. They
    keep their roads as much as they can in good state of repair.
    That is what they are doing now and have done.
        But now we have an opportunity with the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure package to really build more where areas that
    need that, and in your memo, you say, more capacity, but, there
    is a big but in there, you have to consider all these other
    things, you should consider all these other things.
        If you look further into the AASHTO letter, since you
    brought it up, some of the quotes are, while the legislative
    process that led to the IIJA was certainly unconventional, and
    the congressional intent regarding the Federal highway program
    over the next 5 years provides State DOTs with flexibility in
    how investment decisions are made with formula to meet each
    State's unique mobility and accessibility needs, proposals to
    require fix it first solutions or prescribe the use of certain
    sources of funding for system preservation do not reflect the
    use of strategic planning, but rather a one size fits all
    approach to asset management.
        This is part of the letter that you are quoting from as
    well, as they deviate from what they see is a directive from
    the Department to do it one way, this way, if you want to have
    favorable, or at least move higher up into the priorities.
        What kind of reaction would you have to that?
        Mr. Buttigieg. I think the States are rightly saying that
    they share these same goals that we are talking about, the
    kinds of goals that are reflected in these bullets, for
    example. But they want the flexibility to be able to do it
    based on their strategy, based on their approach, and based on
    their needs.
        We support that flexibility. In implementing the law as
    written, we are to provide the flexibility that is written into
    the law, and of course, the accountability that is written into
    the law for the standards that apply to the use of Federal
    taxpayer dollars. That is what we will seek to do.
        Senator Capito. Yes, and I will say there is confusion
    here. There is confusion from the stakeholders, there is
    confusion from the State DOTs, because they said, they are
    expressing concern in the letter they sent back to you.
        I am going to move on to one more thing before I give up my
    questioning, I think I am over my time. Maybe I should wait and
    let the other members question.
        I wanted to ask about the One Federal Decision quickly. I
    want to know, how are you implementing this, what steps have
    been taken, what kinds of conversations are you having between
    all the different agencies?
        Mr. Buttigieg. I will give you the most compact answer that
    I can, which is that we are working hard to implement that, in
    particular noting the expectation of steps consistent with the
    2 year agency average in clearing those projects that are
    major, that have that environmental impact statement attached
    to them. We would be happy to follow up with more detail on the
    progress.
        Senator Capito. Do you have a timeline for implementing
    this?
        Mr. Buttigieg. It is already, now, we work toward that goal
    right now. In terms of when we will be able to have the
    dashboard up and see how we are tracking toward that goal, I
    hope to be making progress right away.
        Senator Capito. OK, thank you.
        Senator Carper. Before we turn to Senator Cardin for the
    next round of questioning, I want to make a unanimous consent
    request relating to concerns that were expressed by our
    colleagues on the other side of the aisle as to whether the
    U.S. Department of Transportation is creating a new goal of
    maintaining highway assets that is not consistent with past
    practice or the statute. I ask unanimous consent to submit for
    the record a guidance document from 2004 released by the
    Administration of George Herbert Walker Bush which makes very
    similar points with respect to 2021 guidance. The Bush
    administration encouraged their staff to promote highway repair
    and to work with State DOTs to preserve existing highway
    assets.
        I would further like to submit for the record the text of
    Section 150, Title 23, U.S. Code, this highway law passed by
    Congress in 2012, which established a state of good repair as a
    national goal. I believe these documents show that the recent
    guidance builds on longstanding law and policy to encourage,
    again, to encourage States to maintain existing assets.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.017

        Senator Carper. With that having been said, let me turn to
    Senator Cardin.
        I want to say to Senator Cardin, who chairs the
    Subcommittee on Infrastructure on this Committee, thank you for
    your continued leadership both on this Committee in the Senate
    and the work that preceded it for many years in the House of
    Representatives, and before that as Speaker of the House in the
    State of Maryland. What a life, what a career. It is an honor
    to be your wingman here, and to sit next to you last night
    during that speech.
        Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, you have a way of introducing
    people. We appreciate it very much. Thank you. We appreciate
    your view of history, your own personal examples in your life,
    how it has formed your priorities.
        But most important, I think I speak for every member of
    this Committee, we appreciate your respect for every single
    member of this Committee and bringing us together, to have the
    type of civility to deal with difficult issues where we have
    different views, but to be able to move forward in a very
    positive way. That was very clear with the legislation that
    Senator Capito referred to, the two pieces passing this
    Committee, and the Bipartisan Infrastructure package, which
    basically incorporates the work of this Committee. We thank you
    very much.
        Senator Capito, I always enjoy working with you. I have a
    different view as to your point in regard to the letter issued
    by the Department of Transportation. I do think we always want
    to find the right balance, the balance between giving
    flexibility to the States which are determinative of the
    priorities that are important for their community, but also to
    advance priorities, national priorities. As Chairman Carper
    pointed out, we put that in law.
        The balance between maintaining our infrastructure and
    increasing capacity is one in which we have an interest at the
    national level to make sure it is attended to, and that we have
    oversight as to how the transportation programs of this country
    are balancing those two very important issues. That is our
    responsibility.
        And as we negotiated this bill, many of us had very strong
    priorities in regard to transportation safety, in regard to
    equity, in regard to maintenance, in regard to resiliency, in
    regard to climate change. And we were able to work out the
    implementing legislation so that we could get unanimity in our
    Committee to advance those priorities.
        So yes, Mr. Secretary, we want to maintain flexibility. But
    we also want to advance national priorities. I think the way
    that you have explained your letter I agree with completely.
        So 90 percent of the funds go by formula programs, we have
    talked about that, some of the formula programs deal directly
    with safety; some of them deal directly with air quality. So we
    have programs that we advance the funding in because that is
    our priority also. So it is absolutely consistent for you to
    look at the overall plans of the States to see whether it is
    carrying out what Congress, in a strong vote, asked you in
    implementing the Bipartisan Infrastructure package.
        I could go through a lot of the specifics. We were directly
    engaged in equity; we haven't talked about that. I mention that
    because in my community, we have a highway to nowhere that was
    built in downtown Baltimore that very much negatively impacted
    on the residential communities. And they were not politically
    active enough to stop that at the time.
        Now, we have an opportunity by Reconnecting Communities
    that we can use the Bipartisan Infrastructure package to deal
    with the need of the community because of a transportation
    project that never should have been built in the first place,
    and certainly did not attend to the community when it was
    built. That is an example of how we came together, and we
    specifically spoke to that. I encourage you as to how you
    implement that.
        Then we talked a little bit before the hearing started
    about bicycle lanes, et cetera. We have a Transportation
    Alternative Program. That was initiated by us, bipartisan.
    Senator Cochran and I initiated the Transportation Alternative
    Program. Now, Senator Wicker is my partner on that. We provided
    substantially more funds for the Transportation Alternative
    Program, increasing it from $850 million to $1.4 billion.
        So my point is that the issues that are in the letter that
    was referred to by Senator Capito are priorities that we have
    come together as a Committee to pay attention to, and it is
    only reasonable that you would look at the overall plans of the
    States as to how they are dealing with the priorities that
    Congress has been advancing now for many of our surface
    transportation bills.
        I want to ask you, we have these new programs to deal with
    Reconnecting Communities, if you want to give us quickly a
    status. But I would also like to get to one other question
    during my time. That is, there was an announcement made to
    increase the contracting goals for small, disadvantaged
    businesses. I serve as chair of the Small Business Committee,
    and we have been laser focused on trying to help small
    businesses. I see the Infrastructure Bill as a major tool to
    help America's small businesses.
        But it is also an opportunity to help those small,
    disadvantaged businesses not just in subcontracts. I hope you
    will also take a look at prime contracts. If you could share
    with us how you intend to implement that, I would appreciate
    it.
        Mr. Buttigieg. Thank you very much. We strongly agree that
    there is an enormous opportunity with the public dollars that
    are going to be spent to improve infrastructure around the
    country to create jobs and to create generational wealth. We
    have work that can be done by underserved and I would say
    underestimated businesses and those who have been overlooked in
    the past.
        So we are being very intentional about that, like many
    agencies in procurement. But as you know, the vast majority of
    the dollars that go through our department aren't things that
    we directly procure. They go out through our grants and our
    discretionary programs.
        So it is with a view to that that we are going to work not
    only to ensure that there are ambitious goals set, but to take
    some responsibility for building the capacity in the first
    place. Because we know that navigating those processes can be
    daunting for small businesses that haven't sought Federal work
    before.
        Like you, I strongly believe that we need to see more
    disadvantaged businesses get to that prime role while also
    working with the largest primes that are there right now to ask
    them what they are doing to ensure that some of their
    subcontracting goes to DBs that are overlooked. But we want to
    make sure that we are doing both, and that will continue to be
    a very important focus for us.
        Senator Cardin. Could I ask that you keep us informed as
    well as the Small Business Committee informed as to how you are
    implementing that goal? It is a major increase in percentage,
    which is great. It increases over time, which is also the smart
    way to do it. If you can keep us informed, our committees, I
    would very much appreciate that.
        Then last, in regard to implementing the Reconnecting
    Communities, I would appreciate as that gets rolled out that we
    get as much of the information so that we can get it to our
    communities in order to try to take advantage of these
    opportunities. I would appreciate it.
        Mr. Buttigieg. We certainly will. On Reconnecting
    Communities, I must note it is one of those new starts that is
    waiting for us to move out of that Continuing Resolution
    environment. But we will lay as much groundwork for it now as
    the law permits, while looking forward to being able to move
    fully forward.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Senator Cardin, thank you for those
    questions, and for your kind words.
        Senator Cramer, you are next. Welcome.
        Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. You guys might know each other, I'm not
    sure.
        Senator Cramer. Well, one of the reasons I was pleased to
    support the Secretary is because he came from, well, in North
    Dakota, a large town, but another famously smaller community in
    rural America, and would understand the importance of
    federalism and the importance of a partnership where the
    Federal Government yields to the local and State governments as
    opposed to the other way around.
        That said, I want to add my appreciation to you, Mr.
    Chairman, of course, and Ranking Member Capito.
        I have a saying, Mr. Secretary, that if you want to get big
    things done, you call on the firm of Carper, Capito, Cardin,
    and Cramer. We will get it put together.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cramer. Thank you.
        But I do want to dig in on the federalism point a little
    bit, and the memorandum. Because it did create not just some
    confusion, but concern by people out there who were going, wait
    a minute. We were told that these smart people simplified the
    process, and yet we are getting this sort of complicating
    language.
        I think with regard to the exact language that we excluded,
    specifically excluded from the bill, to see it turn up in even
    a memorandum or guidance as opposed to specific regulation, it
    almost appears designed to create some of that confusion. I
    hope that is not the case, but that is how it was taken.
        When I listened to you describe to Senator Capito, explain
    why it appears, it sounded to me a little bit like you were
    arguing against the spirit of the law by using the letter of
    the law. Again, that adds confusion, because we were very
    specific. And I want to get specifically to the issue of the
    single agency, or the one agency rule, which we codified. You
    said in one of your answers, ``We are working to implement
    it.''
        What causes me to chuckle there; don't get me wrong, you
    have a big job, and it is not as simple as I would like it to
    be, but it is not as complicated as the bureaucracy likes it to
    be, either. The whole point of one agency is to simplify, to
    make it easy to implement, right?
        So let me ask a specific question about funding. Does this
    guidance imply whether intentionally or unintentionally, imply
    a set of priorities that will be used as guidance in the
    decision of the agency when it comes to awarding grants or some
    other funding? You can answer the broader question in the
    context of that specific one if you would like.
        Mr. Buttigieg. Sure. What I would say is it certainly
    reflects our priorities when it comes to discretionary grants,
    for example, as provided for within the law. Some of the things
    we have talked about, safety, state of good repair, the
    economic strength, resilience, these are national priorities,
    Administration priorities, and things that will certainly guide
    me within the parameters of the law in our decisions and our
    approach to the competitive grants.
        With regard to the formulas, again, ultimately the States
    are making these calls. We recognize that and support that.
        We also of course want to help them get to places where
    they might not even have known some of the flexibilities that
    exist. I will give you an example that ties back to what
    Senator Cardin was raising, with Transportation Alternatives.
    There are a number of authorities and flexibilities within the
    Surface Transportation Block Grant that I think many States
    would like to take advantage of. But it might be helpful for us
    to remind them that they have access to that, because that has
    evolved over time.
        But ultimately, the left and right boundaries here are the
    letter of the law. That is all that I can work with in deciding
    what to do in implementing these formula programs.
        With regard to the One Federal Decision, having been a
    local leader and waded through these processes, let me just
    restate my commitment to making sure that administrative
    inefficiency is never accepted as a reason for any of those
    processes to take longer than they could. If we can beat those
    targets, that is even better.
        Senator Cramer. Thank you for that. I think in this era of
    pretty hyperinflation, where the supply side of the economic
    formula has been shorted, we have best get after it real
    quickly. I appreciate your commitment to that. And we need to
    do our part as well and pass in Appropriations, I know we are
    all committed to that; please tell me we are going to get that
    done.
        I will end with this. Federalism really does work. The
    absence of prohibition is not a license to do whatever the
    bureaucracy wants. I think that is how it appears to some
    people. I hope that your clarification is comfort, because my
    advice to my Governor and to my State, and frankly, the five
    State coalition of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana,
    Wyoming, and Idaho, that work together on these policies, it is
    a really big footprint out there, my advice to them is to
    ignore it, frankly, the memo. Because the five of them know
    exactly what to do in rural America.
        Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Senator Carper. Thanks for those questions, and especially
    for giving us--what was the law firm?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cramer. I didn't say law firm, I was specific to
    not say that.
        Senator Carper. But we do make laws.
        Senator Cramer. The consulting firm of Carper, Capito,
    Cardin, and Cramer, I think we could do big things together. So
    far, we have been pretty good.
        Senator Carper. That is great. I oftentimes, and I know
    probably all of us do, I love when I visit senior centers and
    places like that in Delaware, and I meet couples that have been
    married for 40, 50, 60, 70 years. I almost always ask them what
    is the key to a long marriage. The best answer is actually
    repeated by a number of people: The two Cs, communicate and
    compromise.
        Senator Cramer. There you go.
        Senator Carper. We are pretty good at that on this
    Committee. It gets us to a third C, which is consensus, and
    that is what we are trying to do.
        Senator Cramer. That is how you get unanimous votes.
        Senator Carper. There you go. Thanks.
        All right, Senator Merkley. Not a C, but very much a
    consensus builder on his own.
        Senator Merkley. No, Mr. Chairman, I feel very much
    excluded from that.
        Senator Carper. An honorary member.
        Senator Merkley. I think we are going to have the Markey
    and Merkley team to something to respond.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Merkley. Mr. Secretary, two quick comments, then an
    advocacy. In the Infrastructure Bill is the Monarch and
    Pollinator Highway Act, an idea that came from Lamar Alexander
    in Tennessee to use highways to create insecticide free
    pollinator plots to help maintain the strength of our
    pollinators. So I just want you to be aware of that.
        We have seen one of our pollinators, the Western Monarch,
    drop to less than 1 percent of the population that existed 20
    years ago. Obviously, that is a very scary indication for
    pollinators. But it also touches the heart because the Monarch
    butterfly touches the heart. And to have the next generation of
    children grow up and never see one is just something we can
    prevent by utilizing some of our byways along our highways. And
    we would like your help on that. It is now fully authorized.
        The second, I called and talked to you about vehicle
    charging stations, and doing them in a manner that makes it as
    easy to fill up on electrons as it is to fill up on gasoline.
    Our current system is absolutely chaotic. You have no idea what
    system you are going to be charged for, is it a club card, is
    it by the minute, is it by the hookup, is it by the kilowatt
    hour. You have no way to compare them; you don't know if you
    are being price gouged, and sometimes you are, after the fact.
        If we do these stations, and they result in the expansion
    of the same chaotic, confusing system we have now, we have all
    missed a massive opportunity to do it right. This is in your
    hands. Please make sure we do this right.
        Then let me turn to the third piece, and that is the MEGA
    projects grant program. We have in Oregon a deepwater port that
    is unutilized in Coos Bay. And it was considered for many
    projects over time that have failed, including a potential LNG
    export facility that didn't work out for a host of reasons.
        But it is a perfect place for a container port. There is a
    whole operation underway to make this happen. You have an
    existing Federal channel. You have quick access to the open
    ocean. You don't have to go 100 miles up the Columbia River, as
    you do for the Port of Portland. It would expand the West Coast
    container facility effort by 10 percent. You have a railroad
    line that takes you through the coastal mountains to the
    Willamette Valley to a class one transportation network. You
    have the land in place for the development of the port itself.
        But it is a big project. But it meets every one of the five
    stipulations for the MEGA projects grant program. So I am
    asking for you and your team to take a very close look at this.
    Because when I think about the vision of doing things that have
    regional and national significance on our transportation
    system, on our economy, this is it. This is the perfect poster
    child.
        So I would simply ask that you and your team take a very,
    very close look at this possibility. I don't know if you are
    already familiar with it, but I would be glad to escort you
    through the Coos Bay Container Port Project.
        Years ago, the short line that existed to the Willamette
    Valley, the company that owned it was going to tear up the
    railroad tracks and sell the steel. And we got the funding in
    the State of Oregon to buy that line, save that railroad line.
    It is being used now; it is being improved now. It will have to
    be improved further.
        We are ready to invest a lot of money to be able to double
    stack containers through a series of tunnels, strengthen the
    bridges for the weight. We have the land ready. But we are
    going to need significant Federal support. And I hope it will
    be at the top of your list for the MEGA projects.
        Mr. Buttigieg. Thank you. I look forward to a chance to see
    the region for myself. I am certainly interested to discuss
    anything that enhances supply chain capacity in this country.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
        Senator Carper. Senator Merkley, thank you for joining us.
        I think Senator Markey has joined us. We have a couple of
    people in line.
        Thanks for coming today.
        Senator Lummis is next, and I believe she is going to join
    us by Webex.
        Cynthia, are you out there? Senator Lummis.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Buttigieg, thank you for your time today. On
    February 11th, a Federal court issued a preliminary injunction
    that prohibits 11 agencies, including the Department of
    Transportation, from using a metric known as the social cost of
    greenhouse gases. That injunction also prohibits the DOT staff
    from participating in the interagency working group established
    by President Biden. His Administration is using figures to help
    justify its sweeping environmental agenda.
        Has DOT fully stopped using this figure as required by the
    court?
        Mr. Buttigieg. We are making sure to comply with all court
    decisions and relevant laws. We are still reviewing this
    injunction. It certainly has the potential to impact a number
    of rulemakings, grant programs, and other projects.
        So we are trying to work through that in a way that
    minimizes the disruption to our ability to get rules done and
    to get dollars out the door, but meets our ability to, of
    course, respond in every legally appropriate way to the meaning
    of the injunction.
        Senator Lummis. I will be interested in receiving
    documentation demonstrating DOT's compliance with portions of
    the injunction. Can I rely on you to help me get that
    information?
        Mr. Buttigieg. I would be happy to follow up with you on
    anything you need relative to our compliance.
        Senator Lummis. Great. Thank you so much.
        I want to switch to the issue of truck parking. Mr.
    Secretary, one of the issues that I focused on during my time
    serving on this Committee has been the lack of available truck
    parking. It came up even as recently as last week. I was in
    Wyoming, got right from Cheyenne to Laramie on Interstate 80,
    they closed the interstate right in front of me due to weather
    issues. And here was a ribbon of highway with trucks lining
    both sides, and very difficult for anybody not driving a truck
    to get off. So you have trucks idling for miles during the
    hours that it took to reopen Interstate 80.
        States have the ability to create truck parking capacity
    within the current formula programs, but there is still a lack
    of capacity. How concerned is DOT over this issue?
        Mr. Buttigieg. Very concerned. And I appreciate your
    raising this. This is a very important issue, and if you talk
    with any truck driver, it is not only an issue of convenience,
    it is an issue of safety.
        Senator Lummis. Yes.
        Mr. Buttigieg. And I might add, as you pointed out, with
    the idling that goes on, it is even an issue of emissions.
        Senator Lummis. You are absolutely right.
        Mr. Buttigieg. I share your enthusiasm for addressing this.
    I was just with a number of folks from the trucking industry
    the other day.
        Let me mention a few programs we think could be useful
    here. The Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, National
    Highway Freight Program, the Highway Safety Improvement
    Program, as we talked about this being a safety issue, the
    National Highway Performance Program, and the Congestion
    Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program.
        But let me also mention that I don't think it is
    unreasonable to look into whether the Carbon Reduction Program,
    and in some ways, perhaps, in certain locations a discretionary
    program that is for reducing truck idling at port facilities
    might be relevant here as well. We are hearing this everywhere
    we go with truck drivers.
        I would welcome an opportunity to work with you to make
    sure that the funding and the authorities available in the law
    are actually being used to alleviate that problem.
        Senator Lummis. Fabulous. Thank you. I would be delighted
    to work with you on that. It is a big issue in my State,
    especially on Interstate 80, which crosses the entirety of
    southern Wyoming.
        Now, it is my understanding that the most recent Jason's
    Law report has been completed but not released to the public.
    Can you explain what the delay is there? Jason's Law dealt with
    truck parking a couple of highway bills ago. And the report is
    apparently delayed.
        Mr. Buttigieg. Let me run that down and try to get more up
    to date information for you on that.
        Senator Lummis. That will be great. Thank you so much, and
    I will reach out to you subsequently so I can make sure that
    Wyoming's DOT is accessing every possible program available to
    alleviate our truck parking issues on Interstate 80. I really
    appreciate your time today, Mr. Secretary.
        Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Senator Carper. Senator Lummis, thanks so much for joining
    us. You wouldn't know this, but when we were live, the first
    five or six members were asking questions, and then we went to
    you on Webex. You have heard the term, voice of God. Your voice
    was so loud we could probably have heard you all the way in
    Wyoming. A voice from around the world.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Lummis. Sorry about that. I don't have Chaplain
    Black's baritone, so that was probably a little annoying, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Carper. No, it was not annoying at all. He doesn't
    have your volume, either.
        All right. It looks like Senator Padilla is next on Webex;
    Senator Wicker has been here, is that correct, ahead of Senator
    Markey? All right.
        My staff says Senator Whitehouse is next.
        Sheldon, if you would make your way.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here.
        I understand there has been some suggestion that the
    Department should not make any efforts to mitigate
    transportation greenhouse gas emissions or to ensure
    infrastructure resilience in the implementation of the
    Infrastructure Bill. I wanted to ask, it is true, is it not,
    that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law includes a climate
    title?
        Mr. Buttigieg. Correct.
        Senator Whitehouse. And it is true that it also includes
    funding that is required to be used on emissions reductions and
    resilience?
        Mr. Buttigieg. Yes.
        Senator Whitehouse. And it is also true that it requires
    all States to develop a strategy to reduce emissions from the
    transportation sector, correct?
        Mr. Buttigieg. Yes.
        Senator Whitehouse. You had some questions about the
    application of the social cost of carbon decision out of the
    District Court in Louisiana. Does that decision relieve you of
    any responsibilities to make decisions in fact based way, in a
    fact based environment?
        Mr. Buttigieg. Not at all.
        Senator Whitehouse. With respect to the Administrative
    Procedures Act, if facts are developed through the notice and
    comment procedures, you will continue to abide by the
    strictures of the Administrative Procedures Act and make
    decisions that are consistent with the facts that have been
    developed in the hearing process?
        Mr. Buttigieg. We would.
        Senator Whitehouse. And in grants, is it appropriate for
    the Department to recognize harms and benefits of applicants'
    projects and consider the harms or benefits of the applicants'
    projects in evaluating which grants should be awarded and which
    grants should be deferred or denied?
        Mr. Buttigieg. As provided in authorizing statute,
    absolutely.
        Senator Whitehouse. And in a fact based environment, is it
    not a fact that there are substantial costs associated with
    carbon pollution?
        Mr. Buttigieg. Unquestionably.
        Senator Whitehouse. In Rhode Island, the particular facts
    that are of most concern to us have to do with flooding. We are
    looking at potentially feet of sea level rise toward the end of
    this century. That means redrawing the map of Rhode Island. We
    have some of the best mapping in the country. We realized early
    on that FEMA maps were defective, inaccurate, and failed. So we
    drew our own. And that program has been very, very successful,
    and is looked to from around the country.
        So I am hoping that you will support better mapping to make
    sure that the projects you are looking at are being evaluated
    against best science and best predictions of what is actually
    going to be there as sea levels rise or as river flooding
    renders properties more and more vulnerable to being
    underwater.
        Is that your understanding of your responsibilities?
        Mr. Buttigieg. Certainly. I come from a river city, and I
    have had the experience of looking at the rising floodwaters
    and realizing that what was characterized as a 500 year flood
    is increasingly becoming almost a semi-annual event. I know
    that has been the experience in a lot of different places.
        Sometimes we take those mapping or other criteria as given
    under the statute. But we always want to make sure that we are
    working with the most accurate and up to date information that
    we can.
        Senator Whitehouse. The disinclination I often see in this
    building to take climate warnings seriously is very
    regrettable. And it is particularly regrettable for coastal
    States like mine which are looking at very significant
    repercussions from our refusal to acknowledge fact based
    problems that we can solidly predict are going to come at us.
        If other States were having to look at having to redraw
    their boundaries because of a problem, they would expect some
    sympathy and consideration from colleagues. And I would hope
    that as people look at what is being predicted pretty much
    uniformly for coastal States, we take into consideration the
    reality of those concerns and the danger to our coastal
    environments.
        It is not just me, and it is not just environmental groups,
    and it is not just coastal communities that are saying this.
    Freddie Mac, Freddie Mac, the big Federal mortgage insurer, has
    warned that we are headed for a coastal property values crash.
    Now, for colleagues who don't have coastal property, they may
    think that is funny or not of concern to them.
        But the crash predicted by Freddie Mac is of such severity,
    like 2008 mortgage meltdown level severity, that it is
    predicted to cascade through the economy in the same way that
    that did, well beyond the affected mortgages, and create
    economic dislocation across the country.
        So please continue to pay attention to this, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Buttigieg. You have my commitment.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Senator Markey, I believe you are next.
    Then we will go to Senator Ernst; I think Senator Duckworth is
    going to join us by Webex; Senator Kelly, Senator Padilla.
    Senator Markey, thank you for your patience.
        Senator Markey. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Everything
    that Senator Whitehouse said goes for Massachusetts as well by
    extension. We are subject to all of the same threats that Rhode
    Island is subject to. And again, the most important
    environmental case thus far in our history, Massachusetts v.
    EPA, is based on the erosion of the Massachusetts coastline,
    and by extension, Rhode Island. And they voted five to four to
    mandate that the EPA had to make an endangerment finding.
        So that has already been done. We know this is happening,
    and we know that we have an absolute responsibility to ensure
    that we put in place the protective measures.
        Last year, Chairman Carper and I reintroduced the Green
    Streets Act, which would set goals to cut emissions from the
    National Highway System and help States protect the systems
    from unavoidable climate impacts. And we have money for that
    already in Build Back Better. We still have to work hard in
    order to get that passed. But there are already steps you can
    and should take under the climate title in the bipartisan bill
    that Senator Whitehouse was just referring to.
        Could you talk about those funds and the actions which you
    can take in order to ensure that we are dealing with the
    climate related impacts?
        Mr. Buttigieg. Gladly, Senator. This is a major priority
    for us. It starts with the awareness that the transportation
    sector is the single biggest contributor of greenhouse gases in
    the U.S. economy. And I view that as a challenge for us to
    aspire to be the biggest part of the solution. The law that you
    have sent to us to implement is a major part of how we can do
    that.
        I will point quickly to just a few elements in it that will
    help us meet that goal. One, of course, is the electric vehicle
    funding. We have already put out the guidance for $5 billion in
    formula funding to the States for charging infrastructure along
    highways. That will be followed by $2.5 billion in competitive
    funding for community charging grants, all as part of getting
    that network of half a million EV chargers up.
        Then of course there is $7.3 billion in formula funding to
    States, and another $1.4 billion in competitive grants over 5
    years under the PROTECT program, recognizing the climate
    impacts that are upon us, no matter how effective we are at
    mitigating them. There is the carbon reduction program, $6.4
    billion to specifically reduce transportation related
    emissions.
        I will note, and unfortunately this is something I have had
    to repeat a few times in different regards in this testimony,
    we cannot fully implement this program either while under a
    Continuing Resolution because of the prohibition on new starts.
        Last, I will mention the $500 million Healthy Streets
    program, which allows for competitive grants to deploy cool and
    porous pavements and to expand tree cover. These unglamorous
    measures I think can make a big difference on things like heat
    islands, air quality, flood risks, and other impacts from our
    infrastructure development.
        Senator Markey. I agree. A lot of these companies, they
    have landscaping on the side of their truck as they pull up,
    but it is really land scraping. They are just coming to tear
    down the trees, tear down the green, and all of a sudden, we
    have a beautiful new modern street in front of us, and there is
    just something that has been lost in our country in terms of
    valuing trees and all the roles that that can play.
        I would like to come back to the community vehicle charging
    infrastructure aspect of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill and
    what we are also going to be trying to do in the Build Back
    Better bill. That is just to make sure that there is equity.
    There is a lot of talk about making sure you can travel across
    the whole country, recharging stations.
        But I think simultaneously, it is imperative for us to
    focus upon communities, upon equity questions, upon making sure
    multi-housing units and communities that probably aren't always
    thought of to be the first place where electric vehicles are
    going to be operating, are also a part of this planning.
        Could you talk about that a little bit, and how you are
    envisioning ensuring that while you can travel across the
    country and you can make your trip, yet simultaneously people
    in the community that need these charges will also be given
    access?
        Mr. Buttigieg. Yes, thank you. The equitable access to
    electric vehicle charging infrastructure is a major priority. I
    think it is one of the things we will be able to support with
    that $2.5 billion for community charging. It is worth noting
    that lower income Americans would stand to benefit the most
    from the fuel and maintenance savings of EV ownership,
    provided, of course, that they could afford to purchase an EV.
    There is pending legislation that might help on that front.
        Just a few days ago I was in Colorado at an EV charging
    station at a public housing facility, where there is an
    electric car share program. So I think it is a great example of
    how we can move out of the old view where EVs were regarded as
    a luxury item and recognize them as something that, with
    support from our policies, should be accessible to everybody.
        Senator Markey. Thank you. My father was a truck driver.
    You kind of get a job where your father works, so I got a job
    driving a truck for 4 years. That is how I worked my way
    through college. But it was an ice cream truck, so I had to
    pull it into the driveway every night, jump out, and plug it
    into the side of the house. It took under 15 seconds every
    night.
        Now, my father hadn't thought it through, because now his
    car can't be in the driveway; my ice cream truck is there.
    Nonetheless, if we think it through, and Malden is still a
    community at the bottom quartile of income in Massachusetts,
    with a plan for those kinds of communities as well, I think
    people can adapt very easily.
        So I thank you for your leadership, Mr. Secretary. Once
    again, I give you the invitation to come up and see the Bourne
    and the Sagamore Bridge in Massachusetts.
        Mr. Buttigieg. I have not forgotten, and I would have been
    shocked if it didn't come up, Senator. Thank you.
        Senator Markey. And you will come?
        Mr. Buttigieg. You can count on it.
        Senator Markey. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr.
    Secretary.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. You are pretty persistent. You get an A for
    persistence. That is good.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. Senator Ernst is next.
        It is good to see you today. You are recognized.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us today as well.
        Senator Markey's line of questioning actually will lead
    into my line of questioning as well. I know that the American
    people really have the Russian invasion of Ukraine first and
    foremost on their minds as well as higher energy costs. So I am
    of the thought that energy security is national security.
        While it is absolutely clear that you support America's
    clean energy economy, my concern is that electric vehicles are
    being prioritized over our biofuels. And this will only make us
    more dependent on those foreign adversaries who control the
    majority of worldwide production for a number of the key
    components that do go into electric vehicles--the cobalt, the
    lithium, the graphite.
        So we do need to be aware of that. Here is an interesting
    statistic that goes along with this. The Energy Information
    Administration has projected that 79 percent of car sales in
    2050, so about another 30 years away, will use liquid fuels.
    The USDA states that ethanol has a 46 percent lower greenhouse
    gas profile than gasoline.
        I know you are from the Midwest, and I know there are a lot
    of biofuels as well in Indiana. Would you agree that the
    Renewable Fuels Standard and biofuels are an equally, if not
    more effective, solution to the American energy independence
    that we need, while also securing a cleaner energy future?
        Mr. Buttigieg. Thanks for the question. As you note, I come
    from the part of the country where this is very important as
    well. As a matter of fact, when I was mayor and ran the water
    utility for our city, my biggest customer was the ethanol plant
    in our community.
        When you look at our EV policy, of course, the focus is on
    zero emissions vehicles. But I also have a great deal of regard
    for the role of biofuels and homegrown fuels in America's
    energy mix. While our work on the zero emission vehicles
    doesn't really allow us to pick winners and losers outside the
    boundaries of the categories put forward in the law.
        I certainly am interested in opportunities that exist.
    Notably one area where I think there is increasing interest,
    while there of course is a continued very important role in
    fueling the cars on the road today, is around sustainable
    aviation fuels. I would love to have a dialogue with you on
    that as well.
        Senator Ernst. Absolutely. I do appreciate that. If there
    are additional ways that we can use our biofuels, we certainly
    want to find those avenues.
        You did just mention zero emissions for those electric
    vehicles. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, within
    that, electric vehicles are considered zero emissions and
    biofuels are considered low emissions.
        But when we have looked into this, electric vehicles
    actually do have a significant greenhouse gas footprint from
    the beginning of their manufacture, whether that is battery
    creation, actually building the vehicle, and not to mention
    that probably a lot of the electricity that is being used to
    power those vehicles is coming from non-renewable sources.
        So could you agree that perhaps those electric vehicles are
    not truly zero emissions?
        Mr. Buttigieg. Any economic activity, manufacturing, could
    have a carbon profile. But we also have done the analysis to
    demonstrate that even if the electricity is generated from
    fossil fuels, the carbon emissions associated with driving a
    vehicle will typically be lower if it is an electric vehicle
    compared to if those fuels are being combusted in the vehicle
    itself.
        But certainly I would agree that this is not a black or
    white issue, that there are many different energy profiles and
    many different ways of getting around. Again, I think back to
    my experience as mayor, and our enthusiasm for using CNG in the
    vehicles that we had at the time. Even taking waste gas from
    our wastewater facility and putting it into our trash trucks.
        Senator Ernst. Yes, and I think that we should be exploring
    all different opportunities that are out there. But I do want
    to make sure that at least our American public understands that
    with the creation of these vehicles and their battery
    components, many of those components coming from overseas and
    adversarial countries, just understanding the impacts that we
    have in creating those vehicles as well.
        Thank you. I appreciate your time so much, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Buttigieg. Thanks, Senator.
        Senator Carper. Senator Ernst, thanks so much for those
    questions, and for joining us today. The point that you make is
    a good one, one of the points you make is a good one. I
    understand, I had my staff double check, but I think our
    friends at General Motors have indicated they are not going to
    be selling vehicles that are powered by fossil fuels at some
    point in time, the number 2035 sticks in my mind. The folks at
    Chrysler, what used to be Chrysler, have a similar kind of
    expectation. Those are being pushed by market forces more than
    anything else.
        But as a guy who spent a lot of years in Navy airplanes,
    the importance of biofuels with respect to air travel, that is
    key. That is a big, important one. I am glad to see the
    Secretary is on top of that. Thank you, Joni.
        I believe the next person on our list is Senator Duckworth.
    I believe she is joining us by Webex.
        Senator Duckworth, are you there?
        Senator Duckworth. I sure am, Mr. Chairman. And I agree
    with you on the importance of biofuels for aviation. United
    Airlines is really making some of those investments, my
    hometown airline out of Chicago.
        I also want to associate myself with the comments of my
    friend, Senator Ernst, from Iowa, that the RFS is critically
    important for that clean energy future and that biofuels are a
    critical part of that. I want to stress that the cost of
    gasoline at the pump is not dictated by the price of RINs.
    There are other factors that drive up the price of gasoline at
    the pump.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. I want to
    commend you for taking the initiative last year to restore the
    Local Labor Hiring Pilot Program. We share a real commitment to
    empowering communities to design infrastructure contracts that
    prioritize creating new jobs through local and economic hiring
    programs.
        As a former mayor, can you explain the job creation
    benefits of providing local leaders with the freedom and
    flexibility to decide for themselves whether they wish to
    prioritize local job creation when awarding construction
    contracts?
        Mr. Buttigieg. Absolutely, and thank you for the question,
    Senator. Too often, we hear stories from people who live in a
    community, they see an infrastructure project happening around
    them, they see the folks in the hard hats with good paying jobs
    working literally in their neighborhood, and think to
    themselves, it doesn't appear that anybody here working on this
    project looks like they came from anywhere near here.
        It is partly in response to that, and on the positive side,
    in response to the enormous opportunity to build generational
    wealth, to support pathways into the middle class, that we want
    to support local communities that are choosing to move in this
    direction.
        So we have reactivated the pilot program as available to
    the Federal Highway under the law. And we look forward to
    working with all the authorities and flexibilities that exist
    within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to continue to open
    that door for local and economic hiring. We know how much it
    means to communities, to neighborhoods, and to families.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I couldn't agree more. That
    was one of my top priorities during the development of the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, was making sure we eliminated
    the outdated, one size fits all ban on including local hiring
    incentives in construction project contracts.
        Mr. Secretary, as we work to create new, good paying jobs
    and put residents back to work rebuilding their local
    communities, how will new and existing U.S. DOT grant programs
    evaluate applications that include local and economic hiring
    preferences?
        Mr. Buttigieg. Thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
    it is very specific that a recipient may use a local or other
    geographic or economic hiring preference for labor on
    construction projects that are funded. As a result, we are
    going to be moving forward in a way that is consistent with
    that legal framework. And it does update things for some of our
    State and local partners.
        So the ability to transition from that pilot program that
    we were proud to launch in May 2021 to allowing those
    preferences now authorized under the law I think is a big step,
    and a very positive one that is going to position us to really
    unlock so much of the economic potential of this bill.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        One of the other things that the Bipartisan Infrastructure
    Law does is that it recognizes a basic principle. As we work to
    repair and enhance our infrastructure, we must also make sure
    that these upgrades benefit all Americans. That is why I fought
    so hard to include the All Stations Accessibility Program, or
    ASAP Act, in the law. I was pleased that the Biden
    administration recognized the importance of ASAP by including
    it in its top 10 programs in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
    that you may not have heard about fact sheet.
        Secretary Buttigieg, can you explain how our new $1.75
    billion ASAP grant programs improves mobility for commuters
    with disabilities by prioritizing accessibility efforts, such
    as the Chicago Transit Authority's ASAP plan, and how does it
    accelerate project deployment which otherwise would take
    decades for transit and commuter rail systems to complete?
        Mr. Buttigieg. Thank you. As you know, and as you showed to
    me when I was able to visit CTA with you last year, though 75
    percent of America's rail transit stations are ADA accessible,
    the remaining 25 percent will remain inaccessible, even as we
    look back to the time that has passed since the 1990 ADA,
    because they have that legacy date associated with them prior
    to the Act.
        So thanks to the ASAP program, thanks to that $1.75
    billion, there is an opportunity to update those legacy rail
    transit stations that were set up pre-ADA, and make them
    accessible with projects to repair or modify or retrofit them
    so that they have that accessibility. We are working hard on
    making that program available. We anticipate it being available
    later this year. As you know, it is $350 million each year
    across 5 years.
        We think it is so important for not just of course the
    basic equity and fairness at stake, but unlocking the economic
    potential of communities with so many workers with disabilities
    who could be better able to contribute to the economy and life
    of their communities, provided they could get to where they
    need to be.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Thanks a lot for joining us, Senator
    Duckworth.
        Many of you know that Senator Duckworth served our country
    with great valor and courage. We are proud of her service.
        Senator Sullivan is a Marine colonel, not everybody knows
    that.
        Thank you for that service. It is wonderful to serve with
    you.
        We have the Marines here; we have the Navy here. It is a
    pretty good lineup.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a Navy
    captain, I think we have a couple of Navy captains on this
    Committee, yourself included, and Senator Kelly. We even have a
    Navy vet testifying. So I won't be too hard on him, as a
    Marine. I will just give him a little bit of a break.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, it is good to
    see you.
        I want to follow on our conversation. Last July, we talked
    about the needs at the Port of Alaska, that is in Anchorage,
    and how important that is strategically, not just for Alaska
    but for the country. I am going to remind you about some of
    that discussion.
        But first, I want to get your commitment to come on up to
    Alaska and actually see and walk the ground with me, this port
    and other aspects of our infrastructure sometime soon.
        Mr. Buttigieg. Yes, I am continuing to look forward to it,
    that much more so now that we have been able to fund some very
    worthy projects with the last couple of rounds.
        Senator Sullivan. Very worthy, and I appreciate the RAISE
    grants that you got out quickly. That was really important for
    my State.
        So back to the Port of Alaska. It moves 90 percent of all
    goods that come into Alaska, 90 percent. So very important that
    way. That includes 90 percent of the liquid fuel, including
    most of the jet fuel used at JBER.
        So by the end of this year, Alaska is going to have over
    100 fifth generation fighters based in our State. Those are
    F35s, F22s, no place on the planet Earth has that kind of fifth
    generation fire power. And it is also most of the fuel used at
    Ted Stevens International Airport, which during the pandemic
    surged to the fourth busiest air cargo terminal in the world.
    Again, very strategic for the country.
        As you know, the Department of Defense designated 17
    commercial strategic seaports that support the DOD mission; the
    Port of Alaska is just one of 17. I just actually met with the
    TransCom commander yesterday. We had a long discussion about
    this. In the fiscal year 2020 NDAA, I included a requirement
    for an assessment by DOD and TransCom on our 17 strategic
    ports.
        The two DOD strategic ports that came in last in terms of
    their readiness, infrastructure capability, was the Port of
    Tacoma and the Port of Alaska. And so Senator Cantwell and I
    have been working on getting a focus both on these two ports,
    which are actually interconnected in terms of commerce between
    our two States.
        So we are working on a meeting, actually with you and the
    MARAD commander. Can I get your commitment to work with me and
    Senator Cantwell's office to get that done soon?
        Mr. Buttigieg. I would look forward to it. You have my
    commitment.
        Senator Sullivan. So here is the big issue for me, and I
    really need your commitment on this. You might be aware of it,
    you might not. Two months ago, you know there has been a lot of
    litigation getting back almost 20 years between MARAD and the
    city of Anchorage, breach of contracts and everything that
    started back in the early 2000s. And the U.S. Court of Federal
    Claims just in December decided in favor of the municipality of
    Anchorage in this way too long litigation, in my view. And they
    announced a ruling on the damages just last week.
        Here is the commitment I need from you, Mr. Secretary.
    Notwithstanding this court decision, I would like your
    assurance that this award is not treated by the DOT as an award
    in lieu of any of the future grants for which the municipality
    is interested in applying that relate to this port.
        We think that would be unfair. This legal award, and who
    knows, they are probably going to appeal it, and it is going to
    take 10 more years. But it fills a hole that was created with
    these breach of contracts, bad construction work, part of the
    problem there that had been done.
        What we don't want to have happen is all of a sudden DOT
    say, well, the Port of Alaska doesn't need any assistance,
    because it just got this award. I think that would be unfair.
    And I just want to make sure I get your rock solid commitment
    that you will not do that as you are looking at grants, which
    we, Port of Tacoma, others, particularly as part of the
    strategic DOD port network, really need, and we think are
    worthy of.
        Mr. Buttigieg. Yes. I don't know of anything in that
    lawsuit or related to it that would have any effect on current
    eligibility for a grant there.
        Senator Sullivan. Good. So nobody is going to go, well, you
    know, the Port of Alaska just got this big award, so we are not
    going to give them a grant, because they just got something.
    You are not going to do that?
        Mr. Buttigieg. That is not how we will evaluate grants.
        Senator Sullivan. Good. That is very important to me. I
    appreciate your straight up answer, and I just hope your staff
    is watching and all the people who do the evaluations, because
    their boss just said they are not going to do that.
        My constituents, as you can imagine, were happy about the
    litigation finally looking like we have prevailed. But now they
    are worried that someone is going to take it out and use it
    against us. I appreciate your definitively saying that is not
    going to happen. Thank you.
        Mr. Buttigieg. My understanding is all the relevant issues
    are, as you pointed out, from many years ago.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes, almost 20 years ago.
        Mr. Buttigieg. So we don't view that as relevant to current
    eligibilities for current grant programs.
        Senator Sullivan. Great.
        I have some more questions for the record, Mr. Chairman,
    but thank you.
        Senator Carper. I am sure you do. But I think you got your
    money's worth on the first round. You are welcome to stick
    around for another round if you would like. Thank you.
        I think on commitments per minute, that probably got the
    most commitments of anybody who has questioned him today. That
    is not bad.
        Thanks for joining us today, Colonel.
        Senator Stabenow is joining us, Senator Stabenow who also
    chairs the Ag Committee, from the Great Lakes State of
    Michigan, home of the Detroit Tigers.
        Senator Stabenow. That is right. Good morning.
        Senator Carper. Hopefully we will have an announcement
    before too long that the baseball strike is over, and we can
    say, play ball. I can't wait.
        Senator Stabenow. Mr. Chairman is the second greatest
    champion of the Detroit Tigers. I am first; he is second. We
    look forward to hosting you, and I have to say, actually
    welcome to a fellow Michigander. I am so pleased that you and
    Chasten and your two beautiful children have set up shop in
    Michigan permanently. Of course, Chasten was always there with
    his family. But we are glad you are Michiganders, Mr.
    Secretary.
        Mr. Buttigieg. I am happy to have married into Michigan.
        Senator Stabenow. Absolutely. I am also so pleased you are
    in the position that you are in. We have talked a lot about
    infrastructure for a long time. We have actually been able to
    deliver it working together. So this is an important moment.
        You won't be surprised to learn I would like to talk about
    electric vehicles. I am going to brag for a moment, because I
    think it is important when we look at the incredible
    investments the way our American companies are leaning in now
    and counting on us to be their partner if they are going to be
    successful.
        But GM, Ford, Stellantis have laid out aggressive plans to
    electrify their vehicle fleets. In fact, Stellantis just
    yesterday announced an electric Jeep they are doing for 2023. I
    have driven that, it is really something, and electric Ram
    pickup in 2024, and plans to reduce carbon emissions by 50
    percent by 2030.
        GM of course is doing 30 new battery electric vehicles
    worldwide by 2025, plans to only do electric vehicles by 2035.
    And Ford, of course, the great F-150 truck, I have also had the
    opportunity to drive, and the Mach-E Mustang, and their plans
    to increase EV production next year to 600,000 units globally.
        If they are going to succeed with this kind of aggressive
    electrification plans, the charging stations in the legislation
    we passed is absolutely critical. What type of technical
    expertise is the Department of Transportation, Department of
    Energy providing to States? Because we do know that States are
    at various levels of planning at this point.
        Mr. Buttigieg. Thank you, and that is right. The technical
    support is going to be very important. This is not the same
    thing as gas stations. In some ways, electric vehicle charging
    is easier than filling up with gas, because you can do it at
    home. In other ways it is more difficult because of the time
    involved depending on which type of charger you have. So we
    need a paradigm that really works for an EV network for the
    future.
        This is exactly the kind of work that the new Joint Office
    of Energy and Transportation that we have set up with Secretary
    Granholm is taking on. And now that we have put out the call
    for States to submit their plans, we are looking forward to
    seeing what they come back with by the August deadline, and
    working very closely with them on how to make sure that no
    State and no community is left behind with the opportunity.
        Senator Stabenow. Absolutely. I do have to say, when I am
    asked about high gas prices, which right now are extremely
    high, that I am looking forward to a very short time in the
    future when you can drive right by the gas station with your
    electric vehicle and not worry about what it says at the pump.
    I think that is an important part of our future.
        Let me ask another question about another really important
    piece of the bill that I spent a lot of time on over a number
    of years, and that is Buy American, and being able to really
    provide more integrity and transparency. Waivers in the past
    have been used over and over again to waive the requirements,
    rather than looking for the businesses that can actually
    provide the American made goods and services.
        So there are several provisions of my Make It in America
    bill in this law. But I want to ask you specifically about two
    provisions that we have asked the Department of Transportation
    to focus on. One is to ensure that domestic industries are
    ready to provide products for all modes of transportation.
        Second, I think this is very important, before the
    Department issues a waiver to use Federal funds to purchase
    iron or steel or manufactured products to meet Buy America
    standards that you are required to reach out to a manufacturing
    extension partnership and provide small and medium size
    manufacturers with the first opportunity to produce these hard
    to find items for our Nation's infrastructure projects.
        In other words, I know in Michigan, and we saw this during
    the pandemic, when the call went out with what we needed, our
    companies were able to quickly retool to provide that. If they
    know that there is a marketplace, I really believe that small
    and medium size manufacturers are going to be able to step up,
    which means more jobs, obviously more investment in America.
        Mr. Buttigieg. Thank you, yes. We are committed to these
    provisions of the law, not only because it is called for in the
    law, but also as you know, this Administration and this
    President are enthusiastic about Buy America and having more
    manufacturing here in America. Among other things, part of the
    solution, the long term solution to our supply chain issues is
    to be less reliant on things coming in from overseas.
        So we will work to make sure that those U.S. based
    companies have a heads up as part of that waiver process, so
    that they might be able to respond. We will work to meet all of
    the parameters that are laid out and hopefully exceed them.
        Senator Stabenow. Terrific. I am really looking forward to
    working with you on this.
        Mr. Buttigieg. Thank you.
        Senator Stabenow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Senator Stabenow. Thanks for your
    great leadership on the Ag Committee. There is a lot of
    interface, as you know, with the work we do on this Committee.
        Senator Stabenow has been kind to walk me through the
    Detroit Auto Show for more years than I can remember. About 10
    years ago, I remember looking at one of the, they called them,
    I forget which auto company, but they had on display a vehicle
    that was in a garage, this was like a mock up using two by
    fours, the vehicle was in a garage, and the garage was
    alongside of a house, all a mock up.
        I asked the people from that company, I said, what does
    this represent? They said, this is hydrogen. This is hydrogen.
    And they said, the vehicle here is going to be powered someday
    by hydrogen, hopefully, what we call clean hydrogen. They have
    no emissions, and they use fuel cells. And the same technology
    will heat this garage, this house, using your imagination, in
    the winter, and cool it in the summer. You know what? That day
    has come.
        When we look at reducing emissions from large trucks, vans,
    and so forth, some of them use electric, will use electric,
    already use electric. But a bunch of them are going to use
    hydrogen, as you know. That is a good thing.
        Senator Stabenow. Mr. Chairman, if I might just add, I am a
    strong supporter of hydrogen fuel cells as well. Part of what
    we are doing in Michigan is working with the Army, who is right
    on the front lines right now driving these vehicles. You are
    absolutely right. Particularly in the Department of Defense,
    there is tremendous enthusiasm as well as larger fleets. This
    is a really important part of the equation.
        Senator Carper. Thanks so much.
        Speaking of Department of Defense, Captain Mark Kelly.
        Senator.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a fan of fuel
    cells as well, having used them on other vehicles in other
    places. I do look forward to my invitation to the Detroit Auto
    Show at some point.
        Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you again, twice in 2
    days. Thank you for being here today.
        I was really proud to have had the opportunity to work to
    craft the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, both as a member of
    this Committee but also in the group of members that negotiated
    the final deal. And one of the aspects that I am most proud of
    is how this law was crafted to meet the needs of different
    States, different States having different needs.
        In Arizona, one top priority is funding to strengthen our
    State's interstate highways. Arizona is different from many
    other States. When the Interstate Highway System was designed
    in the 1950s and 1960s, Arizona was a small population State
    and their infrastructure needs looked a lot different. Compared
    to other regions, our interstate highways are not designed to
    meet the needs of our growing State and the growing Southwest.
        Right now, Interstate 10, which connects Phoenix and
    Tucson, the two largest metropolitan areas in the State, still
    to this day just has two lanes in sections, long sections. And
    a single accident can cause traffic jams for hours. I have
    spent 6 and a half hours on that highway, stuck in a traffic
    jam when the normal drive is about 90 minutes. These traffic
    jams happen every single day on average.
        Despite being two of the fastest growing cities in the
    country, another issue we have is Phoenix and Las Vegas.
    Phoenix and Las Vegas still are not connected via an interstate
    highway. That is why I worked in this Committee and on the
    floor to support the creation of the new National
    Infrastructure Project Assistance Program, which we are calling
    the MEGA Projects Program, to fund major transportation
    projects with national or regional economic mobility and safety
    benefits. In other words, projects like the I-10 expansion
    between Phoenix and Tucson, or the construction of
    I-11 between Phoenix and Las Vegas, would be these MEGA
    projects.
        Mr. Secretary, would you agree that Arizona and other fast
    growing States have different roadway infrastructure needs than
    other States? And how do you believe the Infrastructure Law can
    help States like Arizona fund the long overdue interstate
    expansion projects?
        Mr. Buttigieg. Thank you for the question. The example you
    raise is a great one of how the infrastructure needs of our
    States differ. I come from a community that lost about 30
    percent of its population in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, up to the
    time that I was mayor. So we had built for more roads than we
    had taxpayers or drivers to support them, and found that in
    some contexts some of our roads needed to go on a diet.
    Although I am pleased to say my hometown is growing again.
        But some of the fastest growing communities are in places
    like Arizona. The needs are an example of why, for example, in
    Federal Highways' internal guidance, there was an effort to
    point out that none of that would stand in the way of a
    capacity expansion where it is appropriate.
        You have raised both the need for, or the vision for an
    entirely new stretch of highway with I-11, or a capacity
    expansion in I-10. There are many sources of funding in the
    formula funds, potentially MEGA projects and others, that could
    go toward this use in the Infrastructure Law.
        I would also add, one thing I have admired in Arizona is
    the funding and support that has gone into transit, including
    across community lines, party lines, county lines. And that can
    serve to take pressure off of congestion, even while capacity
    expansion is being considered at the same time.
        Senator Kelly. Is there anything you could share about the
    timing for the MEGA Projects Program?
        Mr. Buttigieg. I can tell you that we are working right now
    on getting the guidance ready, and that part of what we are
    working on there is to make sure that it is a flagship example
    of a notice of funding opportunity that is user friendly for
    applicants. So we want to get it right. But we also want to get
    it out the door quickly.
        Senator Kelly. What do you think applicants might need to
    do to be successful in applying for these funds?
        Mr. Buttigieg. Of course, first, the guidance will lay out
    the kind of basic expectations for the use of Federal taxpayer
    dollars. Next will be the aspirations of these funds that are
    going to projects, as you know having helped to craft them,
    that can't necessarily be met by any other source, too big, too
    complex, too multijurisdictional or for some other reason.
    Might not happen but for a grant out of the MEGA Program.
        So the ability to demonstrate that and to speak to the
    other policy priorities that are encoded in the law I think
    will make for the strongest applications.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you. We look forward in Arizona to see
    the rolling out of this MEGA Projects Program, and the details
    for how to apply and be successful.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Senator Carper. Senator Kelly, thank you so much. Thanks
    for your deep involvement in these issues on behalf of Arizona
    and our country. Thank you.
        I believe Senator Padilla has been waiting patiently on
    Webex and is ready to participate. After that, if we have no
    one else who joins us who hasn't already spoken, I am going to
    yield back to our Ranking Member, then I will close it out.
        Senator Padilla, are you with us on Webex?
        Senator Padilla. I am here, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
    much. Last but certainly not least.
        I think we all recognize that after decades of neglect and
    under-investment, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is
    delivering billions in much needed new funding to strengthen
    our Nation's transportation supply chain while improving our
    Nation's competitiveness, lowering costs for American families,
    reducing emissions, and all the multiple policy objectives we
    had when we voted for the historic piece of legislation.
        This includes accelerating investment in our ports,
    waterways, and freight networks. So Mr. Secretary, I want to
    thank you for your work to increase Federal flexibilities for
    port grants. And we have talked about it over the phone, given
    some of the choke points that we have experienced in
    California. You have worked to fast track some port
    infrastructure grant awards and announce new construction
    projects for coastal navigation, inland waterways, and land
    ports of entry. So I wanted to start off by giving credit where
    credit is due, and lead with a thank you.
        As you know, working with the Governor and part of his
    team, California plays a central role in the movement of goods,
    not just locally or regionally, but throughout the United
    States. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach alone account
    for approximately 40 percent of the container traffic that
    enters the country. That is huge.
        Last October, the State of California, working with your
    office in the U.S. Department of Transportation, entered into
    an emerging projects agreement to help ease access to Federal
    financing programs for nationally significant ports and supply
    chain resilience, infrastructure projects. This January, just a
    month and a half ago, Governor Newsom's State budget proposal
    for the next fiscal year includes $1.2 billion for ports and
    freight infrastructure projects, including, and this is
    intentional, to leverage Federal grants provided by the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law as well as Federal credit
    programs to the Emerging Projects Agreement.
        So I know it is a long setup here, but the question is,
    given the State of California's proposed significant State
    funding contribution for the specific purpose of attracting
    Federal investment through grants and financing, what can the
    Department of Transportation do to reward States, make that an
    incentive for States that are taking proactive steps and
    putting their own skin in the game?
        Mr. Buttigieg. Thank you for the question and for the
    conversations we have had about just how important it is to do
    everything that we can to support goods movement and supply
    chains in this country. As you know, ports like those in
    California have such economic significance in terms of the
    volume that comes through them that you feel the impact of
    their success or their problems as far as away as my Indiana
    hometown.
        I think for that reason it has been especially rewarding to
    see creative approaches taken like that Emerging Projects
    Agreement. We hope that there will be more where that came from
    as other States look at that example, effectively helping to
    fast track many of these credit programs that we think would
    make a difference when it comes to alleviating those supply
    chain issues.
        You also mentioned that California is a State that has
    acted already to put up a great deal of funding through an
    ambitious budget supporting transportation. I have seen similar
    things in Colorado, Illinois, and others. And I want to
    emphasize that, especially if anybody gets the wrong idea and
    thinks, why would we put up this State money when there is
    Federal money coming, that States that choose to step up are
    putting themselves in an excellent position to take advantage
    of the Federal funding that has been made possible by Congress
    and the Administration.
        I don't mean that in the sense of putting a thumb on the
    scale, but rather just as a clear fact that when you already
    have more investment ready to go into a local match, or to make
    sure that a project can be done with whatever slice of it is
    being proposed for support from a discretionary program, that
    much more is going to be achieved in the State. And so I do
    think States that have taken those steps, that have taken the
    initiative to put up funding for infrastructure, will be
    especially well positioned to take advantage of this national
    vision for infrastructure development that the President is
    leading.
        Senator Padilla. Great. I look forward to following up with
    you on not just funding opportunities, but also the financing
    programs, including RIF, TIFIA, and others to reflect the same,
    incentivizing, rewarding States that are stepping up and
    willing to put skin in the game.
        I will be brief with my next and final question, that is
    just acknowledging the size of the agricultural industry in
    California, including a lot of perishable crops and the supply
    chain issues that we have experienced for many, many months. I
    know you and Secretary Vilsack have teamed up to be responsive
    to those concerns, reaching out to carriers, doing everything
    possible to keep goods moving, not just on the import side but
    especially the export side, which is critical to growers in
    California.
        Can you make any brief comments on how it is going, any new
    ideas how we continue to work together with stakeholders?
        Mr. Buttigieg. Yes, thank you for the question. Because
    while most of the coverage on supply chains has looked at
    things like electronics or clothing coming in from Asia, the
    export side is extremely important when it comes to our
    agricultural goods being able to get out. This is another area
    where collaborations have played an important role.
        I would note a partnership with the Port of Oakland, for
    example, to establish what we are calling a pop up site, or
    container yard, effectively a temporary site that helps ease
    congestion and keep those goods flowing, especially since, as
    you mentioned, they are often perishable or part of a cold
    chain. And so it is especially important that they flow
    promptly. We welcome more opportunities to think about how to
    add ways to make better use of the capacity we have.
        I would also say that suitability for agricultural exports
    is one way to be competitive with grants that are looking for
    economic impact on the discretionary side, and the guidance
    will make more clear how to appropriately speak to that. But I
    think it is certainly something worth considering for anyone
    proposing a supply chain related project.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. A lot to follow
    up on.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Senator Padilla, we are glad that you could
    join us remotely. I look forward to seeing you later today on
    the floor.
        Senator Capito is now going to ask a couple of closing
    questions, and offer whatever closing statements and thoughts
    she would like to present.
        Go ahead, please.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I also want to thank you
    personally for the personal outreach that you have extended to
    me and to my staff numerous times, and shared your cell phone
    and all that. Your accessibility is really remarkable, and I
    really appreciate that. As we move through the implementation
    that will be very important.
        I do want to add to the record a unanimous consent. These
    are documents that show the questions, letters from different
    States and other stakeholders and from lawmakers questioning
    the guidance document.
        Senator Carper. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0356.074

        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        I am going to go back to that one more time. I want to ask
    you a question. Have you had any conversations with Mr.
    Landrieu, who is charged by the President to implement the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure bill on this topic that we have
    talked about, the guidance issue?
        Mr. Buttigieg. I remember him mentioning that he got some
    calls about it around the time that it came up. But we haven't
    talked through the substance of the memo in detail.
        Senator Capito. I would suggest that you have another
    conversation. I was in a meeting last week with him, with
    numerous lawmakers, to where this issue was discussed briskly,
    I will say. And so I would suggest that he is hearing from a
    lot of people that I am sure you are hearing from, but he might
    be hearing it from a little bit different angle.
        So on that last topic, I would say in response to the
    question that Senator Kelly asked, and this was around the MEGA
    projects, but I would imagine that this is all guidance, your
    quote was, ``Guidance lays out basic expectations.'' I think
    that is where the issue is with this December 16th guidance
    letter.
        The other thing I would like to say is in terms of what
    Senator Whitehouse said, and some of the comments that you have
    said, this is a bipartisan bill that we passed. There is a
    climate title in there. There is an emphasis on finding
    resiliency, greenhouse gas mitigation, carbon emissions,
    healthy streets. This is an area that we are deeply committed
    to. These are grant programs. These are not the formula dollars
    that go out.
        So I want to make the distinction, and would you agree,
    these are two separate programs that are pots of money, so to
    speak. The discussion that I am having with you on this
    guidance doesn't really apply to the climate title parts of the
    bill. Would you say that is correct?
        Mr. Buttigieg. Yes, I think most of what we have been
    discussing in that context was outside Federal aid highway
    programs. Yes.
        Senator Capito. Right. Yes, thank you.
        Question on, you put out a combined notice of funding for
    three different programs, the MEGA, the INFRA, and the Rural
    Surface Transportation grant program, which obviously is one
    that I am most interested in, or not most interested in, but
    very interested in. My understanding is that this is sort of an
    unusual approach.
        I am not sure how to really calculate, I guess I would like
    to know why you are doing this, and the education outreach that
    you have done to the States. Because this is a different way of
    looking at this.
        Mr. Buttigieg. Yes, thanks for asking that. What we are
    trying to do is make our grant process more simplified and user
    friendly, less duplicative. Especially knowing that the easier
    we can make our processes to navigate, the more we are going to
    see rural communities, communities with fewer resources, able
    to take advantage of it. Our staff likens it to a common
    application for college, so you don't have to put in your zip
    code nine different times.
        Of course, there is information that sometimes is very
    customized to these specialized programs. But if we can gather
    it up all at once and only ask you to fill out one form instead
    of three, we think it is one example of reducing the
    administrative burden associated with what can already be a
    daunting set of requirements to try to apply for these
    programs.
        Senator Capito. Good. Because that is sort of the way I saw
    it. I thought, well, it is trying to be a simplification, I
    guess the devil is in the details, to see how that actually
    rolls out. I don't think bureaucracy in any place is known for
    simplification or anything.
        So I hope that that is the end result. Because if you are
    looking at opening up these applications to different, not just
    State DOTs but municipalities and where they don't have--our
    State DOT basically helps all our municipalities write all of
    their grant applications that they can have right now anyway in
    this area. So thank you for that.
        On the EV, just a quick question. I might be off base, or
    not understanding it. So the money goes, you have already put
    the guidance out, and I think you said $6 billion.
        Mr. Buttigieg. Five.
        Senator Capito. Five. And the State is going to build, or
    maybe get contractors to build the EV stations in public areas,
    I guess. The question that came to me was, once that is
    completed, the ownership and maintenance and liabilities of
    those facilities then goes to?
        Mr. Buttigieg. So, we don't generally view these as
    government owned and operated, certainly not Federal Government
    owned and operated charging stations. But part of what I hope
    will come of the flexibility for the States to come in with
    their plans is different approaches. Notably, the law provides
    for maintenance to be one spend, one eligible use of the
    funding, and capital to be another.
        We may, we certainly won't have all of the answers here in
    Washington on which is the more efficient way to set up a
    public-private partnership. In other words, which piece of it
    being subsidized will prove to be the most efficient.
        So I think it is a great example of a laboratory of ideas
    where different States working with different private partners
    will come up with different models to effectively buy down the
    difference of the cost in getting those EV chargers up and
    running so that they can make for that national network.
        Senator Capito. So then you would anticipate that that
    issue of maintenance and liability and other issues would be
    worked out on the front end rather than, now we have this, who
    is going to take care of it.
        Mr. Buttigieg. Yes, I think that is right. Those are the
    kinds of things we are working through with the development
    office right now, and we would be happy to keep you apprised.
        Senator Capito. Yes, that is a question that came to me.
        And then this is kind of a question out of left field, but
    I am going to ask it anyway. The President gave his State of
    the Union Address last night. He started with Ukraine,
    obviously. Thank you for your service. You know what is in the
    hearts and minds of our military as they are sort of on tenuous
    ground right now in terms of families being deployed to the
    NATO nations.
        Have you had any conversations or have any conversations
    occurred with you and your department as to what role you might
    play in terms of ratcheting down any involvement we have with
    Russian made goods, Russian commerce, Russian contractors? Is
    this something that is into your realm or not?
        Mr. Buttigieg. To some extent, yes. This is the theme of a
    conversation I had late yesterday afternoon with my
    counterpart, the Ukrainian Minister of Infrastructure, as well
    as their Ambassador in Washington. One of the things we
    discussed was something that they requested that the President
    then announced last night, which is the closure of the U.S.
    airspace to Russian aircraft.
        Senator Capito. Right.
        Mr. Buttigieg. There may be other steps that would be
    appropriate that are within our authorities. Obviously, this
    situation is fast unfolding. So we are moving quickly to assess
    them.
        But I do think there are a number of things with regard to
    infrastructure and certainly with regard to travel that we need
    to look at as a way to make good on our commitment to support
    the Ukrainian people. I am also in frequent contact with many
    of my counterparts among our allies and partners to look at
    what they are doing, what we might be doing, and how best to
    coordinate.
        Senator Capito. I would like to follow up on that as time
    goes on. I think we certainly don't want to get into a
    situation where we find out, as we I think have been
    enlightened to, that we have been importing 600,000 barrels of
    oil from Russia, that our transportation system is wholly
    reliant, obviously not wholly reliant, partly reliant or
    certain parts or certain minerals or whatever is relying on the
    Russian economy. Because what we see going on, I think we all
    agree here, is egregious in terms of Russia's aggression. And
    we want to shut that down as quickly as we can.
        So thank you so much for that.
        Mr. Buttigieg. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Senator Capito, thanks for those closing
    thoughts and for helping us put this together. I think it has
    been a terrific hearing. Very informative. Thank you to your
    staff, our staffs on the majority side as well.
        Mr. Secretary, one of the things I like to do when we have
    an important issue like today, if we have a panel where we have
    different points of view, I will ask Senator Capito sometimes
    to kick it back to the panel and just ask them, if three or
    four or five people are on a panel, I will ask them, where is
    the consensus, where is the agreement. I could kick this back
    to you pretty easily, because you are the panel.
        You have tried in conversation for the last couple of hours
    to help us with consensus and communication. Would you like to
    take just a couple of minutes to sum up and come back, maybe
    reiterate something, touch on something you haven't, maybe
    answer a question that hasn't been asked?
        Mr. Buttigieg. I will say, I think I missed an opportunity
    with regard to Senator Capito's question about One Federal
    Decision to note that there has already been a one time hack in
    the law, which was the 60 day requirement to share information
    on the categorical exclusions. And we have met that. So I did
    not mean to be abstract in talking about our desire to meet
    some of those other goals. But we have met our requirements so
    far, and are committed to continuing to do that. I appreciate
    the chance to revise and extend there.
        I will be very concise, noting I am a panel of one, and
    just express again kind of as I began my appreciation and
    gratitude for the work of this Committee. I really believe that
    the improvements we are going to make, the things we are going
    to fix, and the things we are going to build across the
    different areas in the transportation infrastructure, they are
    going to help goods get to where they need to go, affordably
    and swiftly. They are going to help people get to where they
    need to be, they are going to create so many jobs in this
    country. I think we are all going to be proud of them.
        At a time when all of us worked through this last year,
    when there were many commentators scoffing at the idea you
    could have a bipartisan anything law, the fact that legislation
    of this scope and scale and ambition was passed by this
    Congress, largely built in this Committee, and signed by this
    President, is an extraordinary thing.
        Our department takes very seriously our responsibility and
    our opportunity to make the most of this and to get it right. I
    doubt we will get an opportunity this compelling again. So
    thank you.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        I think I speak not just for Senator Capito but for all our
    colleagues on this Committee, it has really been a privilege
    for us at this point in time in our Nation's history to have a
    chance coming out of the worst pandemic in 100 years, one of
    the worst recessions since the Great Depression, to have the
    opportunity to work on this set of issues that really will help
    get this economy moving, make us more productive, and enable us
    to help a whole lot of families who need some hope and need
    some help.
        I love to go to schools; I know you have been to a ton of
    schools. We all have, and they have assemblies and so forth.
    They ask us what we do. It is not uncommon for one of them,
    especially in elementary schools with an assembly of kids, they
    will say, what do you do? I will say, I am a United States
    Senator. They say, well, what do you do? I say, we help make
    the rules for the country. What else do you do? And one of the
    things is, we really try to help people.
        As a native West Virginian, someone who has lived most of
    his life in Delaware, one of the best ways you can help
    somebody is to make sure they have job. The 8 years I was
    privileged to be Governor of Delaware, we used to have
    presidents of Delaware, but I was privileged to be the Governor
    of Delaware, more jobs were created in those 8 years than any 8
    year period in the history of the State of Delaware. I didn't
    create one of them. I helped create a nurturing environment for
    job creation and job preservation.
        There are a lot of ways to do that. We talked about some of
    them. But a really important one here today is transportation,
    the ability for people to get where they need to go, goods to
    get where they need to go in a timely way, and enable us to
    foster even more job creation.
        Let me just take a look at my notes here. I have just a
    couple of questions and a couple of points I need to make sure
    this is on the record. I would just say, we have a lot of
    witnesses who come before us, including a lot of folks from
    this Administration and earlier Administrations. I have always
    described, people will say, what is he like? I will say, he is
    smart. He is smart.
        And I will say the other thing, he is practical, and plain
    spoken, but he has a great grasp on the issues and is able to
    really walk and chew gum at the same time, and do it better
    than most anybody I have had before our Committee from any
    Administration.
        So we thank you for all of that. I just want to say thank
    you for your willingness to be responsive and to really say to
    your team, those on your team, your expectations. You set a
    good example in that regard.
        We need a couple of nominations, as you know, from the
    Administration. One of them is the head of Highway
    Administration. It is hugely important, as you know. There are
    a couple of others as well. And we need that.
        Senator Capito. And Air.
        Senator Carper. Yes, and Air, the Office of Air.
        Mr. Buttigieg. Yes.
        Senator Carper. We need to pass an omnibus and fund this
    Government until the end of the fiscal year, until the end of
    September. Senator Capito is the senior member of the
    Appropriations Committee. She is working hard on that, along
    with her other colleagues.
        It would be a shame if we spent all these years only to
    have to wait year after year having Infrastructure Week and
    then another Infrastructure Week next year, and another. As I
    said earlier, this is Infrastructure Decade. We want to make
    sure that we get a lot of stuff done. Part of that is on us;
    part of that is on you and communicating, collaborating will I
    think set a good example for this country in fulfilling the
    needs that have been expressed, and the hopes that have been
    expressed.
        With that said, a little bit of housekeeping before we
    adjourn. Senators will be allowed to submit written questions
    for the record through the close of business on Wednesday,
    March 16th. We will compile those questions, Mr. Secretary, and
    we will send them to you and your team. We ask that you reply
    to them by Wednesday, April 6th.
        A lot of us spent a couple of hours together last night as
    the President of our country did what Presidents have done for
    many years, that is deliver the State of the Union message. He
    spent the first almost hour talking about what is going on in
    the country of Ukraine. He laid out what we are trying to do in
    the coalition that he has helped to assemble.
        We have a couple of Ukrainian churches in my State. I had
    the opportunity to worship there on Sunday at both of them, in
    a show of solidarity. I think I speak for every member of this
    panel, everybody in the Senate, we cannot allow to stand what
    Putin is doing in Russia.
        I don't say this lightly, but if he is allowed to get away
    with this with respect to Ukraine, I spent some time flying
    missions in and out of the South China Sea, including Taiwan.
    If he gets away with this with respect to Ukraine, somebody
    else is going to come along and look to do something similar to
    this in Taiwan. This is doubly important.
        I would just close with that. I would say to the people of
    Ukraine, we admire you, respect you, value the leadership of
    your president, and are very much with you today and every day.
    More than just prayers, a lot of hope and help.
        With that, we are adjourned. Thanks so much.
        [Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]