[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]